Wolfe v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 23 September 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 13122 |
| Citation | 107 Okla. 112,1924 OK 785,230 P. 506 |
| Parties | WOLFE v. CAMPBELL et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Jury--Issues for Jury--Action for Attorney's Fee.
Where suit is brought for an attorney's fee of specified amount, such suit is an action for the recovery of money, and under section 532, Comp. Stat. 1921, issues of fact arising in such an action are to be determined by a jury, unless a jury is waived or a reference ordered.
2. Same--Amount of Reasonable Fee.
In such action the issue as to what would be a reasonable attorney's fee for the services rendered is an issue of fact, to be determined by a jury from the evidence.
3. Same--Effect of Prayer for Equitable Lien.
In an action for a specified attorney's fee, where issue is joined as to what is a reasonable fee, such issue is for the jury, notwithstanding the plaintiff may pray that an equitable lien be decreed against defendants' land. In such case the jury may properly determine the issue of fact and return a verdict for what it finds to be a reasonable fee; the court may then render judgment for the amount of the verdict, and, in the exercise of its equity powers, decree a lien against defendants' land for the satisfaction of the judgment. The fact that decreeing a lien calls for the exercise of equity powers by the court does not take from the jury the power to first determine the issue of fact as to what fee is reasonable, a determination of the fee being the foundation of the right of a lien.
J. W. Willmott, R. J. Roberts, J. Read Moore, S. S. Orwig, E. W. Whitney, and C. Dale Wolfe, for plaintiff in error.
C. Guy Cutlip and Thos. J. Horsley, for defendants in error.
¶1 This was an action to recover an attorney's fee and have the amount declared a lien against defendants' lands. The parties will be referred to according to the positions they occupy in this court. The undisputed facts are that defendants in error had a case in this court involving title to lands, this court had decided adversely to defendants in error, and time for appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States had almost expired. Plaintiff in error, who had not previously been attorney in the case, was employed by defendants in error to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and did appeal same to said court and obtained a reversal of the opinion of this court, and in due time a mandate conforming to the views of the Supreme Court of the United States was placed of record in the district court of Seminole county, and title to defendants in error's land hereby settled. However, defendants in error refused to pay plaintiff in error his fee for legal services in procuring said reversal, and plaintiff in error brought this action to recover his fee and to have same declared a lien on defendants' land. Plaintiff in error prayed for $ 2,000. The case was tried to a jury, under what we consider very definite and correct instructions. The principal controversy in the trial was the value of the services. Testimony was introduced by both parties as to the value of the services. The testimony of the plaintiff in error's witnesses tended to establish the value of such services at the amount plaintiff in error claimed, $ 2,000; defendants in error introduced testimony on the same issue, which tended to establish the value of the services at a materially less figure, even materially less than the verdict of the jury. The jury tried that issue, which was the principally controverted issue before the jury, and returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in error for $ 400 for his services, and upon such verdict the court pronounced judgment and decreed a lien in favor of plaintiff in error and against the lands of defendants in error for the satisfaction of such judgment. Plaintiff in error, being dissatisfied with the amount of the verdict and judgment, brings the cause here for reversal, contending that the services rendered were worth more than he was given judgment for.
¶2 A number of grounds are assigned for reversal of the judgment and different reasons assigned for the recovery of a greater sum, but,...
To continue reading
Request your trial