Prince

Prince v. Kennedy

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·3 Cal. App. 404·85 P. 859
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 7, 1906Civ. No. 152.California978 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gray, J.

In this action it is alleged in the complaint: “That Taylor & Porgy is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a copartnership, composed of W. S. Taylor and E. W. Porgy, who are, and at the times herein mentioned were, engaged in the practice of law as attorneys and counselors at law, in the city of Los Angeles, California. That within two years last past, as such attorneys and counselors at law, and at the special instance and request of the defendant, H. Kennedy, said Taylor & Porgy, rendered to and for said defendant services for which said defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value thereof; that no time was agreed upon for the payment thereof, but said services have been fully rendered and performed and $750 is the reasonable value thereof. That no part of said sum has been paid; and the whole thereof, to wit, the sum of $750, is now due, owing and unpaid.” An assignment of the said claim to the plaintiff is also duly alleged in the complaint.

The answer, in effect admits the performance of services but denies that they were performed within two years last past, and also denies that they were of any value. The answer then proceeds as follows: “And for a further and separate…

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.