White

White v. White

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1007·86 Cal. 216·24 P. 1031
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 25, 1890No. 13948California568 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from that part of the judgment of the superior court which refuses to require plaintiff to pay defendant a reasonable sum of money for her attorne}^’ fees. The court finds that defendant made a certain contract with one of her attorneys (Henry E. Highton), and further finds upon the subject as follows: “By reason of the contract aforesaid between said Henry E. Highton and the defendant, the defendant is estopped and disentitled to any further allowance for counsel fees in this cause, and such allowance, for this reason, and for this reason alone, is refused. Irrespective of the said contract, the defendant would be entitled to a further allowance for counsel fees down to the date of this finding, as follows, to wit, twelve thousand five hundred dollars; and the defendant, for any further and additional services they may render, would be entitled to a further and additional allowance for counsel fees as might be determined by the court.” And in the judgment the court decrees “that, by reason of the contract between Henry E. Highton, one of her attorneys, and the defendant .... the defendant cannot recover against the plaintiff for counsel fees in this…

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.