Gilmore

Gilmore v. McBride

Good Law
156 F. 464·2 Alaska Fed. 820·84 C.C.A. 274·1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4712
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 14, 1907No. 1,348California1,553 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haven, J.

This was an action at law to recover the value of services alleged to have been rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff as an attorney, in an action brought by the defendant to recover an undivided interest in a mining claim known as the “Daisy Placer Claim,” situate in Nome mining district, Alaska. The complaint alleges that the reasonable value of the services so rendered was, and is, $2,500; that $644.75 has been paid on account thereof, leaving a balance of $1,855.25 due to plaintiff.

The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint, and, in addition thereto, alleged that defendant did not employ plaintiff alone to conduct the litigation referred to in the complaint, but employed the firm of Davis & Gilmore for that purpose; that plaintiff was a member of that firm ; that the agreement between defendant and said firm, in relation to such employment, was that the firm was to be paid a reasonable fee to be fixed by the defendant; that the amount of such fee was fixed by the defendant in the sum of $500; that plaintiff was paid $144.75 in excess of that amount; and defendant by way of counterclaim demanded a judgment against plaintiff for said sum of $144.-75.

The…

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.