Duncan

Duncan v. Torney

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 207·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 541·13 P.2d 765
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 1, 1932Docket No. 8364.California758 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

An appeal by the plaintiff from an order taxing and disallowing costs claimed by plaintiff. The reason of the order was that a judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor was one which could have been rendered by the Municipal Court in the City and County of San Francisco.

The action was brought in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to enforce a lien created by contract upon a judgment entered in respondent’s favor against defendant Petersen. The complaint, which was filed on February 14, 1930, alleged an express promise to pay as a contingent attorney’s fee thirty-three and one-third per cent of the judgment recovered, the amount of plaintiff’s claim being $1832. On May 14, 1931, a supplemental complaint was filed, alleging that the judgment had been assigned by respondent to one Millerick, who took subject to plaintiff’s lien, and on May 29, 1931, there was filed an amendment to the original complaint by adding a count for the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services, alleged to be the above sum, and praying that the same be declared a lien on the judgment. The action was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. A judgment was entered…

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.