Brooks

Brooks v. Van Winkle

Good Law
161 Cal. App. 2d 734·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1802·327 P.2d 151
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1958Civ. No. 17738California2,802 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Peters, J.

Plaintiff, Clifton Brooks, brought this action against the administratrix of the estate of Walter S. Van Winkle to recover the reasonable value of legal services rendered by Brooks to Van Winkle between January 1, 1949, and August 3,1952. The complaint alleged that the reasonable value of such services was $16,074.54, of which $1,400 had *736 been paid. The trial court entered its judgment in favor of Brooks in the amount of $14,674.54. From that judgment the administratrix appeals.

The evidence supports the finding that the services rendered were reasonably worth at least the amount of the award. The plaintiff and his expert so testified, and there was no conflicting testimony. Defendant’s major contention on this appeal, which is the same argument made on the trial, is that there is a fatal variance between the pleading and the proof. It is argued that respondent pleaded a cause of action on a quantum meruit and proved an express contract, and that in such a case recovery cannot be had. At the close of plaintiff’s ease defendant moved for a nonsuit on this ground, and, when this was denied, immediately rested without the production of any evidence.

The complaint does allege a…

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.