Wasson v. Dow

• Decision Date: 21 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14713.,14713.
• Parties: WASSON v. DOW.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

251 S.W. 69

WASSON v. DOW.

No. 14713.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 21, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; H. B. Shain, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by M. J. Wasson against H. D. Dow. A demurrer to the evidence was sustained, verdict for defendant directed, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Paul Barnett, of Sedalia, for appellant.

Montgomery & Rucker, of Sedalia, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Defendant is sued by a former client to recover $650 of a fee theretofore paid him for his services in obtaining a divorce. At the conclusion of all the evidence the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, and peremptorily instructed the jury to find for defendant. The plaintiff has appealed.

The petition alleged that plaintiff retained defendant to represent him in a divorce action to be brought against his wife; that plaintiff had reached an agreement with his wife for the adjustment of their property rights, and the defendant was employed to draw the necessary papers, take the necessary steps in court to obtain the decree, and to execute the papers necessary to a division of the property which had been agreed upon between them. The petition further alleged that the defendant performed these services, and that they were of the reasonable value of $50; that, when the services had been performed, plaintiff took up with the defendant the matter of advising him and of paying the defendant such fees as he was entitled to for the performance of such services; that thereupon the defendant represented to plaintiff that the services he had performed were of the reasonable value of $700, and further represented to plaintiff that the usual custom among lawyers in fixing the fee to be charged in a divorce action was to fix the same on a percentage based upon the value and amount of property involved; that the plaintiff was ignorant of the custom of lawyers in fixing fees in divorce cases, believed such representations to be true, and relied upon them, and was thereby induced to pay, and did pay, defendant the sum of $700.

It was further alleged that the representations were not true, that it is not and was not the custom of lawyers to fix the amount of their fees in divorce cases upon a percentage basis, according to the amount and value of the property involved, all of which the defendant well knew; that defendant made such representations to plaintiff fraudulently, wrongfully, and with intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, and to extort from him a grossly exorbitant fee; that the defendant did wrongfully, fraudulently, and knowingly greatly overcharge plaintiff in settling the amount of his fee and the amount of money demanded by defendant and paid by plaintiff was grossly excessive.

The defendant denied making the representations charged, and denied that plaintiff and his wife had made an agreement adjusting their property rights, and set up that to obtain a settlement thereof was one of the main reasons plaintiff employed defendant, as plaintiff was a man of large property, and was desirous of adjusting their property rights on the most...