Hicks

Hicks v. Drew

Good Law
117 Cal. 305·1897 Cal. LEXIS 658·49 P. 189
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 17, 1897L. A. No. 124California2,915 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries to real estate. An appeal is prosecuted to this court from the judgment and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff objected to Mr. Annable, one of defendant’s attorneys, appearing in the case, upon the ground that liis prior professional relations with her had been such as, in law, to deprive him of that right. On taking evidence upon this question, the court held against her contention, and reversible error is now claimed upon that ruling. There is no serious conflict as to the facts bearing upon this matter, but wherever contradictions do exist, we are bound to resolve them in such a way as to support the action of the trial court. Prior to the filing of the complaint by plaintiff, she held several conversations with attorney Annable as to the facts of her case. At the final conversation, he offered to prosecute the action in her behalf upon a contingent fee, the amount of that fee to be dependent upon the size of the judgment eventually secured. When this offer was made by Mr. Annable, plaintiff withdrew, and thereupon employed other attorneys, who inaugurated the present litigation. If these facts…

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.