Keeley v. Erbe

California Court of Appeal

Keeley v. Erbe

164 P.2d 906, 164 P. 906, 33 Cal. App. 267, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 324

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 21, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 1987.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 P.2d 906 (Keeley v. Erbe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keeley v. Erbe, 164 P.2d 906, 164 P. 906, 33 Cal. App. 267, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action brought by him to recover the reasonable value of legal services.

From the record it appears that the parties entered into a written contract, under the terms of which the plaintiff was to render services as an attorney at law for the defendant upon a contingent fee of twenty-five per cent of the value of certain land if title thereto should be obtained for defendant. Subsequently, according to the testimony given by plaintiff, a circumstance was called to his attention for the first time which made the prospect of securing title in the name of the defendant very doubtful; whereupon plaintiff told the defendant “that the situation did not look good to him,” and refused to proceed under the contract. They then entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff should proceed to render the agreed services, he to be paid a fair fee, without, however, there being any agreement as to its amount. The defendant denied that there had been a rescission and abandonment of the written contract.

Oral evidence was admissible to prove that the parties entered into a new and distinct agreement as a substitute for the written one (1 G-reenleaf on Evidence, sec. 303, p. 4); and while perhaps such testimony under some circumstances should be viewed with distrust, nevertheless in this case the trial court who heard the testimony and saw the witnesses believed the testimony introduced by the plaintiff as to the oral agreement, and found accordingly. We are constrained, therefore, to hold that the judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed by this court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action brought by him to recover the reasonable value of legal services.

From the record it appears that the parties entered into a written contract, under the terms of which the plaintiff was to render services as an attorney at law for the defendant upon a contingent fee of twenty-five per cent of the value of certain land if title thereto should be obtained for defendant. Subsequently, according to the testimony given by plaintiff, a circumstance was called to his attention for the first time which made the prospect of securing title in the name of the defendant very doubtful; whereupon plaintiff told the defendant “that the situation did not look good to him,” and refused to proceed under the contract. They then entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff should proceed to render the agreed services, he to be paid a fair fee, without, however, there being any agreement as to its amount. The defendant denied that there had been a rescission and abandonment of the written contract.

Oral evidence was admissible to prove that the parties entered into a new and distinct agreement as a substitute for the written one (1 G-reenleaf on Evidence, sec. 303, p. 4); and while perhaps such testimony under some circumstances should be viewed with distrust, nevertheless in this case the trial court who heard the testimony and saw the witnesses believed the testimony introduced by the plaintiff as to the oral agreement, and found accordingly. We are constrained, therefore, to hold that the judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed by this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 P.2d 906, 164 P. 906, 33 Cal. App. 267, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeley-v-erbe-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack