Wright v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Citation: 51 Mo. 269
• Parties: F. P. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. JOHN A. BALDWIN, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 Mo. 269

F. P. WRIGHT, Appellant,

v.JOHN A. BALDWIN, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1873.

Appeal from Benton Circuit Court.

F. P. Wright, for Appellant, cited in argument, Smout vs. Ilbury, 10 M. W. 8-10; Sto. Ag., 264. Randell et al., vs. Trimen 37. English Law and Equity Reports, 273.

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

F. P. Wright brought his suit in the Circuit Court of Benton County, against John A. Baldwin, to recover the value of legal services rendered by plaintiff as attorney, to the Mechanics Bank, under the employ of defendant, while the latter was acting as Agent of the Bank, and also to recover the costs of a suit, which plaintiff unsuccessfully brought against said Bank for said fees, in consequence of the covin of defendants.

The petition in substance, charges that defendant was the agent of the bank, to make collections and to settle and adjust the business of its branch at Warsaw, at a stipulated compensation, and by his agreement with the bank was to employ the necessary attorneys at his own expense; that it became necessary for him in so doing to employ an attorney to institute two attachment suits in favor of the bank, against nonresident debtors of the bank; that defendant in order to induce plaintiff to institute and prosecute these suits, fraudulently and deceitfully held out to plaintiff, and induced him to believe that, as agent of the Bank, he had full authority to employ plaintiff to institute and prosecute said suits, and that the Bank would pay a reasonable compensation therefor; and fraudulently witheld from plaintiff, that he had no authority to render the Bank liable for the expenses incurred; that plaintiff was thus induced to institute and prosecute these attachment suits, which he did to the full extent of his employment, rendering services to the amount and value, etc.; that in a subsequent suit between the plaintiff and the Bank, in which the liability of the Bank for these legal services was in issue, the defendant upon oath, stated that he had no authority to render the Bank liable, and in consequence, judgment was rendered against plaintiff, and against him for costs, and that plaintiff then for the first time learned that the Bank was not liable. The petition concludes with a prayer for judgment for the above mentioned amount, and the costs adjudged against plaintiff in his suit against the Bank.

The defendant demurred to the petition on two grounds:--

First: That the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Second: That two causes of action had been improperly joined.

The petition was adjudged insufficient, and the plaintiff refusing to amend, judgment was given on the demurrer: from which judgment the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Does this petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. And is there a misjoinder of two causes of action? are the only questions presented by this record for consideration. In Randell vs. Trimen, 37 Eng. Law, and Eq., 275, the declaration stated that the defendant who was employed...