McGown

McGown v. Dalzell

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 373·72 Cal. App. 197·236 P. 941
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 7, 1925Docket No. 5161.California1,461 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cashin, J.

Appeal by Malcolm McGown and George F. Witter from a portion of an order of the superior court of the county of Alameda made after judgment entered in said court in the action of McGown v. William Dalzell et al. The order was based on a motion to recall an execution issued in said action.

The facts as shown by the record are as follows: Appellant George F. Witter, an attorney at law practicing his profession in the county of Alameda, was during the year 1918 employed by appellant McGown to commence and conduct the action above entitled, to recover a sum represented by a promissory note. The agreement between Witter and McGown was that Witter should receive a contingent fee of twenty-five per cent of all moneys received by or through said action and out of the proceeds thereof, and that McGown should reimburse him out of any judgment recovered for all costs and expenses incurred and advanced by him. Thereafter judgment in the sum of $390.98, with costs in the sum of $95.56, was recovered in the superior court against all' the defendants except one R. H. Howk, who had deposited the sum of $1,763 of the amount represented by said note in court, and which sum was later paid to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.