Cuneo

Cuneo v. Davis

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 460·36 Cal. App. 351·171 P. 1079
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 1918Civ. No. 2199.California407 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beasly, J.

The facts of this case are very simple. For some time previous to the eighth day of September, 1916, James H. Boyer, an attorney at law and the assignor of plaintiff, had represented the appellants in certain litigation, for which, it is claimed by plaintiff, Boyer had not been fully paid. At the last-mentioned date an action was pending between the Pacific Coast Casualty Company and Thomas E. Davis in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and Boyer entered into an agreement with the Davises, defendants herein, by which he undertook to defend that action and to pay the costs of defending the same. The provision of that contract which is under consideration here is that in case Boyer should defeat that action and prevent any recovery against the Davises therein, then the Davises would pay to him the entire amount prayed for by the Pacific Coast Casualty Company in that action; or if as the result of said action a lesser amount should be recovered than that claimed, the difference should be paid to Boyer by the Davises, such payment, as the case might be, to be in settlement of what Boyer claimed was coming to him for his services previously rendered in other…

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.