Treakle v. Vaughan Abstract Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1907
• Parties: TREAKLE et al. v. VAUGHAN ABSTRACT CO. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

103 S.W. 174

TREAKLE et al. v. VAUGHAN ABSTRACT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 27, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sevier County; D. B. Sain, Special Judge.

Action by the Vaughan Abstract Company and another against Edward M. Treakle and others, doing business under the name of the Southern Orchard Planting Association. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed, and judgment in favor of defendants on a counterclaim reversed.

Edward M. Treakle and the other defendants formed a partnership in 1903, known as the "Southern Orchard Planting Association," with headquarters in Kansas City, Mo., its real estate consisting of a large peach orchard in Arkansas. The nucleus of the orchard was a tract of 4,000 acres belonging to the Detroit Timber & Lumber Company of St. Louis, and known as the "Clark & Ferguson Lands." Treakle and his associates were under contract to purchase these lands; they claiming to have stipulated that the owners should furnish an abstract of title from the government to date. In 1903 their agent, Neal, came to the office of the Vaughan Abstract Company, and in conversation with plaintiff George Vaughan requested him to continue an old abstract, bringing the title to the Clark & Ferguson lands down to date. This Vaughan agreed to do. The abstract being unsatisfactory, Treakle explained what was required, and, on Vaughan's assurance that he could prepare an abstract to comply with the desired form, Treakle authorized him to go ahead, and told him that he would see that he got his pay. Vaughan immediately returned the completed abstract. In the conversation referred to, Treakle assured Vaughan that he would see that he was paid for the abstracts, but asked him as a personal favor to try and get the money out of Clark & Ferguson, stating that they would have a lot of abstracts in addition to these to be made in Sevier county, and would want Vaughan to make them. At the time plaintiff received the commission of making the abstracts in question, he looked solely and exclusively to defendants for payment. The abstracts were forwarded to Treakle on October 14, 1903, and on the 27th their attorney wrote an opinion pointing out certain defects to be corrected. This resulted in correspondence between Vaughan and the defendants, pursuant to which Vaughan proceeded to make the necessary corrections in the title, so as to render it acceptable to defendants and their customers. The work of perfecting the title was not concluded until nearly a year after the abstracts were made, and, after an attempt by Vaughan to collect pay for his services from Clark & Ferguson, he brought suit against defendants therefor.

J. S. Lake and Jas. M. Chaney, Jr., for appellants. Hal L. Norwood and Vaughan & Vaughan, for appellees.

HILL, C. J. (after stating the facts).

The reporter will state the facts, and the different questions discussed will be taken up in their order.

1. Mr. Vaughan rendered a bill against defendants in the court below, who are appellants here, for $312, of which $162 was for preparing 11 abstracts of title, and $150 was for "fee for perfecting title to all of above lands, recording necessary deeds, exemplifications, redeeming lands," etc. Mr. Vaughan is an attorney, as well as an abstracter, and the latter fee charged was for various services performed in perfecting title to the various tracts described in the 11 abstracts which he had prepared, and including items of expense amounting to $33, which left his charge for legal services $127. During the course of the cross-examination of Mr. Vaughan, appellants attempted to make him state in detail what his services were worth for the various and divers items making up the entire bill — for instance, what charge he may have made for procuring a certain affidavit, or procuring a quitclaim deed from a certain person. He said that he did not make up his bill by considering each service separately, but that he had made his charge as a whole for the entire services, including expenses that he had been put to in procuring the evidence necessary to perfect the titles. His service included correspondence, the securing of affidavits, quitclaim deeds, satisfactions of mortgages, procuring patents, and such matters. He said that he could not remember in detail just how much time he was put to in the different matters; some of them he recalled, and some he did not. The appellants insisted that he take each item in detail and state separately its value and the expenses attendant upon it. The court made this ruling, to which exception is taken: "I am going to let him go into detail and state what he did. As far as the amount, if he don't know, I am not going to make him state...