Hite v. Woodville

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Hite v. Woodville

135 So. 684, 17 La. App. 214, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 750

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1931

DocketNo. 13,712

StatusPublished

This text of 135 So. 684 (Hite v. Woodville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hite v. Woodville, 135 So. 684, 17 La. App. 214, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 750 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

MORENO, Judge ad hoc.

This suit involves a question of fact. Plaintiff claims ■that the attorney employed to represent her in a damage suit was to pay one-half of the doctor’s bill. The attorney says that there was no such agreement and that the doctor’s, bill was to be borne wholly by the client.

There is clearly an issue of fact presented and, in view of the fact .that the attorney had the opportunity of reducing the contract to-writing, but instead of doing that, left it in an indefinite shape, and in view of the fact that the judge of the trial court found the facts to be against the attorney, and as we see no palpable error, we see no reason for not affirming that judgment.

For the reasons assigned the judginent appealed from is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORENO, Judge ad hoc.

This suit involves a question of fact. Plaintiff claims ■that the attorney employed to represent her in a damage suit was to pay one-half of the doctor’s bill. The attorney says that there was no such agreement and that the doctor’s, bill was to be borne wholly by the client.

There is clearly an issue of fact presented and, in view of the fact .that the attorney had the opportunity of reducing the contract to-writing, but instead of doing that, left it in an indefinite shape, and in view of the fact that the judge of the trial court found the facts to be against the attorney, and as we see no palpable error, we see no reason for not affirming that judgment.

For the reasons assigned the judginent appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 684, 17 La. App. 214, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hite-v-woodville-lactapp-1931.