Fairchild

Fairchild v. Whitmore

Good Law
1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 72·6 Cal. App. 52·91 P. 336
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 1907Civ. No. 343.California537 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action brought to recover upon a promissory note. The defendant in his answer admitted the execution of the note, and set up in defense a counterclaim for services performed as an attorney and counselor at law. The jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

It is claimed that the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence a certified copy of the claim of the defendant presented to the referee in the matter of the Richards Pump Company, an insolvent debtor. Among other items of services contained in this claim is the following: “Also services and preparation of papers in removal of two directors of said company” (Richards Pump Company). The appellant supported by his own testimony all the items of his bill of particulars, except one, which reads: “Feb. 5, 1904, assisting Wm. P. Hubbard in removing John J. Meyers and C. H. Humphreys as directors of the Richards Pump Company, and electing C. H. Fairchild and H. J. Piersol in their place, $50.” This bill of particulars itself, however, was offered and read in evidence. The claim was admitted to meet…

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.