Thompson v. Emerson

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 94 S.W. 818,118 Mo.App. 232
• Parties: THOMPSON, Appellant, v. EMERSON, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 818

118 Mo.App. 232

THOMPSON, Appellant, v. EMERSON, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

April 24, 1906

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.--Hon. David H. Eby, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Ball & Sparrow and Tapley & Fitzgerrell for appellant.

George W. Emerson for respondent.

OPINION

BLAND, P. J.

The action is in assumpsit to recover a balance of three hundred and twenty-six dollars and ten cents for legal services rendered and money expended by the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, an itemized account of which is set out in the petition.

The answer is as follows (omitting caption):

"Now comes defendant herein and, for answer to plaintiff's petition filed in this cause, admits he paid plaintiff the sum of $ 215.50 and denies each and every other allegation in said petition contained.

"Defendant further answering says that on the--day of June, 1903, he had a settlement with defendant in which all items for services and moneys expended were included and upon said settlement plaintiff was indebted to defendant in the sum of $ 12.50 for which defendant asks judgment and for his costs."

A reply was filed denying the new matter in the answer.

The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for fifty-six dollars and eighty-three cents. Plaintiff filed a timely motion for new trial which the court overruled and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove each and every item of the account, and that the charges for his legal services were reasonable.

Defendant in his evidence, admitted many of the items of the account and testified that in August, 1901, he had a settlement with the plaintiff of all matters of account between them, and in the settlement it was ascertained that plaintiff owed him $ 12.50, and denied that plaintiff rendered him any service thereafter; but it was admitted on the trial, by defendant's attorney, that plaintiff rendered legal services for defendant, at his instance and request, as late as January, 1902. Over the objection of plaintiff, defendant was permitted to testify that the plaintiff, without his knowledge or consent, and greatly to his damage, entered satisfaction of a judgment for twenty-seven hundred dollars, which defendant had obtained in a Texas court against certain parties residing in that State. He was also permitted to testify, over the objection of p...