Smith v. Fletcher

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. Fletcher

152 F.2d 20, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2226

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1945

DocketNo. 8968

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 152 F.2d 20 (Smith v. Fletcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Fletcher, 152 F.2d 20, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2226 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant, after trial by the court without a jury, in a suit between lawyers for a division of fees. The client’s contract was made with appellee. The disputed question was whether appellee made an oral contract with appellants to divide the fee with them. The evidence was in conflict. The court found “upon a consideration of all the evidence in the case that the * * * plaintiffs have not sustained the burden of proof in attempting to establish their claim.” Though the court erroneously called this finding of fact a conclusion of law, this circumstance does not require us to reverse the judgment since it does not prevent us from understanding the basis and theory of the judgment.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c provides: “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial, court to. judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” We are not prepared to say that the court’s finding in favor of ap-pellee was clearly erroneous..

Appellants say that one of the court’s underlying findings, viz., “There is nothing in any reply to [a certain] letter asserting a claim based upon an equal division of the fee,” is contrary to the undisputed testimony. But we take this finding to mean no more than that appellants, to whom appellee wrote the letter in question, did not write to him any reply asserting their claim. Accordingly the finding is not contradicted -by testimony that appellants (1) replied to appellee by telephone and (2) sent appellee a copy of a letter which they wrote to the client, in each instance asserting a claim to an equal division of the fee.

We need not consider the correctness of the court’s opinion that the asserted agreement, if it had been made, would not have been enforceable.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant, after trial by the court without a jury, in a suit between lawyers for a division of fees. The client’s contract was made with appellee. The disputed question was whether appellee made an oral contract with appellants to divide the fee with them. The evidence was in conflict. The court found “upon a consideration of all the evidence in the case that the * * * plaintiffs have not sustained the burden of proof in attempting to establish their claim.” Though the court erroneously called this finding of fact a conclusion of law, this circumstance does not require us to reverse the judgment since it does not prevent us from understanding the basis and theory of the judgment.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c provides: “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial, court to. judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” We are not prepared to say that the court’s finding in favor of ap-pellee was clearly erroneous..

Appellants say that one of the court’s underlying findings, viz., “There is nothing in any reply to [a certain] letter asserting a claim based upon an equal division of the fee,” is contrary to the undisputed testimony. But we take this finding to mean no more than that appellants, to whom appellee wrote the letter in question, did not write to him any reply asserting their claim. Accordingly the finding is not contradicted -by testimony that appellants (1) replied to appellee by telephone and (2) sent appellee a copy of a letter which they wrote to the client, in each instance asserting a claim to an equal division of the fee.

We need not consider the correctness of the court’s opinion that the asserted agreement, if it had been made, would not have been enforceable.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 20, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-fletcher-cadc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack