White v. Am. Law Book Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 12688 |
| Citation | 233 P. 426,106 Okla. 166,1924 OK 123 |
| Parties | WHITE v. AMERICAN LAW BOOK CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Attorney and Client -- Contingent Fee--Right of Client to Terminate Relationship.
While a client has the right to terminate his relationship with his attorney at any time, where an attorney is discharged by the client, or is otherwise wrongfully prevented from performing the professional duties for which he was employed, without fault on the part of the attorney, the latter is entitled to compensation, even though the arrangement was for a contingent fee, provided the contingency has taken place.
2. Same--Compensation -- Discharge Without Fault--Measure of Damages.
Where an attorney is employed at an agreed compensation and fully performs his agreement until discharged without cause, the measure of his damages is the compensation named in the contract.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Osage County; C. B. Wilson, Jr., Judge.
Action by the American Law Book Company against H. P. White for balance due under contract for purchase of books, in which defendant sought by cross-petition to offset for legal services rendered plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
H. P. White, for plaintiff in error.
Gray & Palmer, for defendant in error.
¶1 The American Law Book Company sued H. P. White, attorney, for a balance due on Cyc and Modern Eloquence. Defendant filed answer and in cross-petition sought offset for legal services rendered the plaintiff. Judgment on verdict was for plaintiff for full amount claimed, from which defendant appeals. Parties will be referred to as they appear in the trial court.
¶2 The record shows that the contract by which defendant purchased Cyc provided for buckram binding, which contract was the basis of the original petition; that by mutual agreement through letters, thereafter, sheep binding was substituted; that defendant accepted the latter and made several payments on the set. A part of this correspondence was shown by the amended petition of plaintiff. Defendant complains that there was thereby a departure in the amended petition, and that plaintiff abandoned the contract and that the suit was on oral contract, against which he pleaded the statute of limitations. We observe simply, that these objections are technical and wholly without merit under the facts.
¶3 The only question to be determined is whether error was committed by the court in the trial of the offset. Plaintiff sent defendant about four accounts against lawyers for collection, obtaining defendant's name from a published list of attorneys. With reference to certain two of said accounts, plaintiff wrote defendant that "upon all monies collected from either of said claims, we shall be ready to allow you a commission of 50%." Defendant performed services in an effort to collect same. Thereafter plaintiff wrote defendant, referring to one of such claims, that it was the instruction of the president of plaintiff company that the company must have $ 100 at once or the return of the books, advising defendant to guide himself accordingly and report immediately. On receipt of said last letter, defendant procured an agreement from the one debtor to return the books, and so advised the plaintiff. In reply, plaintiff wrote defendant acknowledging the information that debtor was willing to return the books to plaintiff; that same were in Arkansas; that defendant did not consider the account collectible; that for that reason defendant should "return all papers in order that we may have a free hand to decide on further action," and thanked defendant for his efforts. Defendant did return the claim and papers in his hands.
¶4 It is apparent that the first agreement was for a contingent fee of 50% of cash collected; that same was modified by the proposition of plaintiff to take $ 100 in settlement or the return of the books; that defendant accepted such offer and performed his part of the modified contract by procuring return of, or the offer to return the books. Thus the contingency took place.Then, clearly without the fault of defendant, plaintiff discharged him as its attorney in that particular matter. No evidence was introduced as to the value of the books returned, or agreed to be returned. Since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcqueen, Rains & Tresch, Llp v. Citgo Pet.
...[Emphasis provided.] ¶ 16 Two cases which are particularly informative were decided by this Court in 1924. In White v. American Law Book Co., 1924 OK 123, 233 P. 426,10 an attorney sought to enforce a "contingency fee" contract against a former client. Like CITGO, the client prematurely dis......
-
Watson v. Gibson Capital, L.L.C.
...validity and correctness. 5 O.S.Supp.2006 § 5; Burkhart v. Lasley, 1938 OK 63, ¶ 9, 75 P.2d 1124, 1125. 9. White v. American Law Book Co., 1924 OK 123, 233 P. 426, 427. The comment to Rule 1.16, Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.Supp.2008, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, states in pertinent part: [4] A......
-
Mount v. Schulte
...his agreement until discharged without cause, the measure of his damages is the compensation named in the contract. White v. American Law Book Co., 106 Okla. 166, 233 P. 426. 7. ASSIGNMENTS--Note executed for personal service is assignable but contract for such service is not. A contract fo......
-
Self & Assocs., Inc. v. Jackson
...entitled to compensation for his or her services rendered up to the time of discharge. As stated in the early case of White v. American Law Book Co., 1924 OK 123, ¶ 7, 233 P. 426, 427: The relationship of attorney and client is one of reliance, trust, and confidence. When any element of thi......