McGowan v. Sullivan

Arizona Supreme Court

McGowan v. Sullivan

52 P. 986, 5 Ariz. 334, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 87

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1898

DocketCivil No. 574

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 P. 986 (McGowan v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGowan v. Sullivan, 52 P. 986, 5 Ariz. 334, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 87 (Ark. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, J.—This

was an action to recover upon a quantum meruit for professional services alleged to have been rendered by the apellant to the appellee as an attorney and counselor at law. The complaint alleges the reasonable value of the services to be five hundred dollars, avers a credit and payment of one hundred and seventy dollars thereon, and asks a judgment for the balance of three hundred and thirty dollars. The answer is a general denial. The case was tried, before the lower court, sitting without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee for her costs, and from this judgment McGowan has appealed.

It is urged as ground for reversal that the lower court failed to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The transcript shows a general finding upon the issues in favor of the defendant (appellee), and we have already held in the case of Daggs v. Hoskins, ante, p. 300, (decided at the present term,) 52 Pac. 357, that a judgment based upon such a finding is valid, under the act of the legislature approved March 16, 1897, (Acts 1897, No. 22). The evidence in this case is conflicting upon the question of the rendition of the services to the defendant and as to their value. We cannot say that it fails to support the finding and judgment of the trial court. The record discloses to us no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Street, C. J., Sloan, J., Doan, J., concur.

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

DAVIS, J.—This

was an action to recover upon a quantum meruit for professional services alleged to have been rendered by the apellant to the appellee as an attorney and counselor at law. The complaint alleges the reasonable value of the services to be five hundred dollars, avers a credit and payment of one hundred and seventy dollars thereon, and asks a judgment for the balance of three hundred and thirty dollars. The answer is a general denial. The case was tried, before the lower court, sitting without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee for her costs, and from this judgment McGowan has appealed.

It is urged as ground for reversal that the lower court failed to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The transcript shows a general finding upon the issues in favor of the defendant (appellee), and we have already held in the case of Daggs v. Hoskins, ante, p. 300, (decided at the present term,) 52 Pac. 357, that a judgment based upon such a finding is valid, under the act of the legislature approved March 16, 1897, (Acts 1897, No. 22). The evidence in this case is conflicting upon the question of the rendition of the services to the defendant and as to their value. We cannot say that it fails to support the finding and judgment of the trial court. The record discloses to us no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Street, C. J., Sloan, J., Doan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P. 986, 5 Ariz. 334, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-sullivan-ariz-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack