Vanasse v. Reid

• Decision Date: 24 September 1901
• Parties: VANASSE v. REID.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

111 Wis. 303

87 N.W. 192

VANASSE

v.REID.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 24, 1901.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The relationship between attorney and client does not render the former incapable of contracting with the latter in respect to the subject-matter of the employment, or with the latter's adversary, where a suit is pending between him and the client, though such dealings are regarded by courts with suspicion and are not sustained against the will of the client if his interests have been thereby sacrificed in any respect.

2. If an attorney deals with his client or with a person opposed to such client in respect to the subject-matter of the attorney's employment, and such attorney's conduct in so dealing is called in question by his employer, the burden is on such attorney to show that the transaction was in no way to the disadvantage of his client, that his conduct was open and honest, that he fully informed his client of all the facts material for him to know, and that he left nothing undone which he could reasonably have done to promote such client's interests.

Appeal from circuit court, Pierce county; James O'Neil, Judge.

Action by Peter Vanasse against Evelyn Reid. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Action to obtain a conveyance of real estate upon the ground that defendant was a constructive trustee thereof for plaintiff. The cause was tried by the court. The following is the substance of the findings of fact: One Cypreansen, by a land contract in the usual form agreed to sell the land in question to plaintiff for $3,000 and thereafter received from him $1,290, plaintiff in the meantime taking from the land for his benefit nearly all the saw timber, amounting to about 675,000 feet, and a considerable quantity of cord wood. While litigation was in progress between the parties respecting their rights under the contract, Ray S. Reid being attorney for the plaintiff in this action, he, as agent for defendant herein and wholly with her money and for her benefit, purchased the land of Cypreansen for $1,500, and caused the title thereof to be conveyed to her by deed from each of the parties to the contract. As a part of the transaction and without other consideration than that named, Reid secured for plaintiff a settlement of the litigation mentioned and a cancellation of all Cypreansen's claims against him, amounting to $2,496.16, with interest thereon from February 3, 1898, which claims were a lien on the land, and, to the extent of $450, a lien also upon plaintiff's personal property, and the notes and securities representing the same were delivered to plaintiff and retained by him. The lien upon the land would have been enforced in its entirety by Cypreansen against plaintiff, and was nearly equal to the full value of the land. Ill feeling existed between the parties to the contract, so that, though Cypreansen would not settle with plaintiff for less than the full amount due him, through Reid as agent for defendant he offered to transfer his interest in the land to the latter and release all his claims against plaintiff for the sum of $1,500, upon condition that no benefit from the land itself should accrue to the latter and that the consideration in the transaction moving from defendant should not be disclosed to plaintiff. Reid accepted such offer on condition that plaintiff would consent thereto. He gave such consent and the transaction was consummated, plaintiff receiving substantially all the land was worth to him. Reid did not know the real value of the property at the time of the conveyance thereof to defendant or that it exceeded $1,800, and he would not have paid more than that sum therefor. Though plaintiff consented to Reid's obtaining the land for defendant as cheaply as he could and to be kept in ignorance of the consideration thereof on condition that all claims against him were canceled, he did not do so freely and understandingly. Reid did not intentionally wrong him, but occupied a situationwhere he could not perform his full duty to his client. From first to last Reid intended to serve his client faithfully, and in some respects went beyond the calls of duty to effect such intention. After the completion of the transaction detailed, plaintiff requested his attorney to return the sum of $200 paid him for the purpose of making a tender to Cypreansen, saying that such attorney had so profited by the transaction that he could well afford to restore the $200. At that time plaintiff was indebted to his attorney in the sum of $235. Soon after receiving information that plaintiff was dissatisfied with what had been done, Mr. Reid offered to restore the former situation if plaintiff would co-operate by returning and reinstating the canceled securities, which he did not do. Reid took the course last indicated in good faith to avoid breaking his promise with Cypreansen.

The court decided on such facts that plaintiff was entitled to avoid the consent he gave to a conveyance of the land to defendant and his acts to effect such conveyance, upon condition of his paying into court for the benefit of defendant, within 60 days after the entry of the judgment, the amount she had expended for the land including taxes paid and the expense of recording papers. Judgment was entered accordingly.

H. L. Humphrey and Ray S. Reid, for appellant.

E. B. & R. E. Bundy, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

Without the aid of the brief of counsel for respondent we would not be able to discover the precise ground upon which the judgment in this case was rendered. It was expressly found by the court that respondent was not deceived in any way by his attorney and his consent to the transfer of the land thereby obtained. It is also found that respondent obtained substantially the full...