Marx v. Lande

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Marx v. Lande

122 So. 907, 11 La. App. 61, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 573

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 10, 1929

DocketNo. 11,143

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 907 (Marx v. Lande) 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

Marx v. Lande, 122 So. 907, 11 La. App. 61, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 573 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

This is a suit by an attorney for a fee. The lower court allowed him $150, which amount is said to be excessive.

The defense is, first, that the plaintiff had contracted to perform the services for a fee of 10 per cent of the amount involved, and secondly, that the amount allowed by the trial court is excessive.

We find that the first contention of defendant has not been sustained by the evidence, and, as to the second defense, the evidence convinces us that the professional services involved were considerably prolonged and somewhat laborious. The business reputation and integrity of defendant, Lande, was involved, and therefore the amount claimed in the suit becomes immaterial in fixing the attorney’s fee. The record also shows that the attorney successfully defended the suit. Consequently the fee allowed was not excessive.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

HIGGINS, J.

This is a suit by an attorney for a fee. The lower court allowed him $150, which amount is said to be excessive.

The defense is, first, that the plaintiff had contracted to perform the services for a fee of 10 per cent of the amount involved, and secondly, that the amount allowed by the trial court is excessive.

We find that the first contention of defendant has not been sustained by the evidence, and, as to the second defense, the evidence convinces us that the professional services involved were considerably prolonged and somewhat laborious. The business reputation and integrity of defendant, Lande, was involved, and therefore the amount claimed in the suit becomes immaterial in fixing the attorney’s fee. The record also shows that the attorney successfully defended the suit. Consequently the fee allowed was not excessive.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 907, 11 La. App. 61, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marx-v-lande-lactapp-1929.