Pacific Bank v. Stone

Action on promissory note for the sum of fifteen hundred and fifty dollars.- Plaintiff had judgment, from which, and from an order denying motion for new trial,, defendant *203 appeals on statement of the ease. Defendant pleaded a contract for professional services as attorney at law rendered plaintiff, by which “plaintiff agreed to cancel and deliver to defendant the note set forth in the complaint and to extinguish said indebtedness.” By way of cross-complaint defendant alleged what in .effect was a claim on quantum meruit, but he withdrew his cross-complaint and waived all claim thereon. The court found that on or about November 3, 1893, the defendant “entered into .a contract with B. H. McDonald, Jr., vice-president and acting president of the corporation plaintiff, whereby defendant should render professional services to plaintiff, and that as compensation for said services said B. H. McDonald, Jr., as vice-president and acting president of the corporation plaintiff, promised and agreed that the note in controversy should be canceled and delivered to defendant”; and that defendant rendered such services to plaintiff, but said note has never been canceled or delivered to…

I concur in the judgment of affirmance. The judgment of the court below on the facts of this case is right. There are, however, some general expressions in the opinion of the commissioner about the employment of an attorney by the president of a bank which are, in my opinion, too broad to be correctly applied to the case of a solvent bank continuously engaged in the regular prosecution of its' usual business.

Hearing in Bank denied.