Wright v. McCampbell

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Henry
• Citation: Wright v. McCampbell, 13 S.W. 293, 75 Tex. 644 (Tex. 1890)
• Decision Date: 24 January 1890
• Parties: WRIGHT <I>v.</I> McCAMPBELL <I>et al.</I>

13 S.W. 293

WRIGHTv.

McCAMPBELL et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January 24, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Nueces county.

G. R. Scott & Bro., for appellant. Stanley Welch and D. McNeill Turner, for appellees.

HENRY, J.

Appellees instituted this suit to recover from appellant the sum of $1,217 charged to be due them for professional services rendered in a suit against appellant in the district court of Nueces county by "the firm of McCampbell & Givens, and by plaintiffs as the successors and assignees of said firm." The petition charges that John S. McCampbell and E. A. McCampbell compose the law firm and partnership of McCampbell & Son, and that they are "the lawful successors and assigns of the law firm of McCampbell & Givens, doing business from 1879, and many years prior thereto, up to January, 1887, under said firm name, and composed of John S. McCampbell, John S. Givens, and E. A. McCampbell." The petition charges that "on or about the 25th day of May, 1885, while the said partnership of McCampbell & Givens was continuing, a suit against defendant for land was filed in the district court of Nueces county, numbered 1,592, and entitled `Frierson et als. versus M. A. Rogers et als.,' and defendant employed said firm, through one of its active members, John S. Givens, to defend and represent his rights therein; and that said firm accepted said employment, whereby defendant promised and became liable to pay them the fair and reasonable value of their services therein; that said firm of McCampbell & Givens, and plaintiffs as the successors and assignees of said firm, did, for a period of more than three years, at each term of said court, appear and defend the interests of said defendant in said cause, and yield and give much time, experience, legal knowledge, skill, labor, study, and care to the said defense, and to the successful end that judgment was rendered in favor of the said defendant at the spring term of said court in the year 1888; that the above-named sum is a fair and reasonable compensation for said services." The case was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs. The defendant answered by general and special exceptions, and, among other defenses, pleaded that he "employed the said Givens to defend the suit, and that he was informed that he appeared and defended said cause for defendant up to the ____ day of January, 1887, when he (the said Givens) departed this life, and that he never at any time employed plaintiffs to represent him, but after the death of Givens he notified them that he did not want their services."

The court filed conclusions of law and fact substantially as follows: That previous to the 20th January, 1887, the firm of McCampbell & Givens was composed of John S. McCampbell, John S. Givens, and E. A. McCampbell, and that it was dissolved on said date by the death of John S. Givens; that plaintiffs in this suit, as surviving partners, under the firm name of McCampbell & Son, assumed all the liabilities and carried out all of the partly-performed contracts, of the old firm of McCampbell & Givens; that McCampbell & Son, by purchase and payment of a valuable consideration, became the owners of the interest of their deceased partner in all the unperformed contracts of the old firm. Also, that in said cause 1,592, of Frierson et al. vs. Rogers et al., the defendant Wright employed the said firm of McCampbell & Givens to represent and defend his interest therein, and that said firm did so defend and represent him, "yielding fully two years' service in the examination of old Spanish titles, investigating mesne conveyances and cumbersome records of genealogical descents, and that said defense was nearly completed at the time of the death of said John S. Givens." Also, that McCampbell & Son, as the lawful successors and assigns of the firm of McCampbell & Givens, believed themselves entitled to carry out the partly-performed contracts of the old firm after the death of said Givens, and that they continued to represent the said Wright, and filed a complete answer in said cause, and continued their services therein to its successful termination by judgment rendered in August, 1888. Also, that some time in the year 1887, and after...