*1 floors, effect on one familiar with floor wax and its “Every is somewhat floor walked over every that waxed must be one knows required to exercise differently floor, she rough was anyone required by see cir- care was the reasonable that could safety. careful However, own whether she was for her cumstances not, negligence or contributory or her not, whether conduct no evidence to show difference, no because there is makes real negligence even if guilty defendant negligent. not only liable if it was It was careful, defendant was something floor the exer- negligent on the there was unless have been there. evidence does care not This cise due should make To hold defendant liable here would not show that there was. negligence.” because liable insurer and not as an negli- Ilgenfritz guilty If case was the defendant that, gence nothing the floor in the exercise because there was on there, care, due have been for the same reason the de- should not guilty negligence Myers ease were be- Dolly fendants only properly thing on was wax cause the maintained both floors Appeals applied. contrary holding by the creates Court conflict. other cases our claim conflict with cite.
Eelators judgment Appeals’ opinion Court of with the Il- conflict genfritz clearly apparent, case so we deem a discussion of the unimportant. other eases opinion Appeals quash-
The record and should ordered. ed. It so concur, Hays, J., except
All absent. Dahlberg. (2d) Appellant, C. B. G. Curry, Charles *742. Banc, Court en December 1937. Opinion Rehearing reported Motion (2d) *NOTE: on in 112 S. W. *3 Liberman,
Burnett, Samuel E. Liberman and L. Stern Jo Robert appellant. Aronson respondent. Ewing
Ewing, Ewing Jo writer, ac case, coming recently an HYDE, C. -This alleged plaintiff to be due under tion recover certain amounts July, in 1918. The 1914. Suit was commenced made in alleged plaintiff, under the facts stated in the due amount $43,529.77. In other his petition
second count of fourth amended were due- counts, alleged additional it was that other and amounts accounting necessary these to determine was plaintiff. defendant total sum due from amounts except second, sustained a demurrer to all court counts count, jury, before upon trial on the second without appealed finding judgment Plaintiff for defendant. has was judgment. from this Fisse, phase Dahlberg
One of this case before this court in v. petition 213, (2d) 328 Mo. 40 S. W. The second count substantially all upon which the case was tried contained allegations Dahlberg v. Fisse. Because view we set out in necessary assignments demurrers, take, to rule the on the it is not allegations so state the made in counts. Plain- will not other we engaged work tiff business. He lumber had started years and, 1914, he old that business when sixteen had engaged thirty years. been business for about He was lawyer. Defendant as a commerce rate expert was described expert, organization acquisi- “and as such .an had formed for the of contracts tion in violation the maximum refunds exacted freight rate acts of of 1905 ex Missouri 1907.” State Chicago Co., 646, rel. Barker v. & Alton 265 Mo. S. Railroad 16, 1012; W. Delano, White v. 270 Mo. S. Q. C., 533, B. Sup. Missouri & U. S. Railroad Ct. (Knott C., Q. 60 L. Ed. Missouri Rate B. & Railroad Cases Co.), Sup. July, 230 U. 57 L. Ct. Ed. eight seeking solicitors in Missouri who defendant shippers freight persuade turn over Missouri their claims for *4 overcharges to defendant for collection. Defendant was not lawyer signed names, petitions the claimants’ to but claims filed, agent court, “by Dahlberg B. G. the petitioners,” as for by lawyers presented employed by had them him. made between shippеrs
Contracts such usually and defendant following provisions: contained the your furnishing
“In consideration of me freight bills, and/or necessary data, covering shipments other you, your made or on account, during years, the last nine freight on charges which the paid by you, have been your account, or on agree I audit overcharges any same. If of kind (including overcharges exist Case), virtue Missouri Rate so-called on which recovery may had', be will diligently I claims prosecute your sarnie fUe for your name, account and vouchers payable be drawn your my care. order you my agree
“In consideration services to pay me fifty per cent all recovered, amounts as soon as vouchers therefor have my only compensation my you, been received which shall be for services. agreed accep-
“It is further if this offer understood and that ted, you freight covering ship- turn bills will over me all year aforesaid; nine period, said that ments handled as freight available, you me where all bills will furnish may request, ship- including numbers, other data I car dates ments, etc., together you consignees; with the names consignees hereby give authority up me to take with several bills, may freight they surrender said or such other data as freight furnish, be able to information to said bills be used and said your account, in accordance this contract. with conditions of agreed “It is further understood and am have exclusive overcharges control the handling contract.” covered defendant, and plaintiff’s relations with circumstances on, plaintiff’s brief, terms of the contract sued stated in follows: agent upon plaintiff
“An Shaw of defendant named called might plaintiff recovery solicit claims have for of excessive charges claims, the railroads. Plaintiff no explanation interested in situation as of Mr. the result Shaw’s expressed thereof, thought might help that he defendant. plaintiff July 2, As on result met in St. Louis defendant meeting agreement, At that an informal reached pencil penciled made some notations. Defendant took this memorandum to St. him a letter which prepared Paul with and there came to parties. сonstitute contract between the . . . It as follows: “ Dahlberg B. ‘Office of G. “ Expert ‘Commerce “ Building ‘1601-2-3-4 Pioneer “ Paul, ‘St. Minn. “ ‘July . “‘(Personal) “ Curry, ‘Mr. Chas. C.
“ ‘Wright Bldg.,
“ ‘St. Louis, Mo.
‘‘ ‘ Curry: Dear Mr. “ arrangements you confirm ‘This will made Louis in St. week last as follows: “ ‘On all *5 handling for the Missouri contracts refunds under you State rate case secure, which secure for or assist me to me I you following proportion my gross compensation will pay connection with such contracts: “ ceaseit necessary go court; is not to trial in ‘20% 15% case trial, but before come to claims settled tbe cases after Supreme States;
trial before the of the United 10% if go Supreme pay- cases to trial in the United States Court. These you my immediately payment ments are to be made to I secure proportion from the clients. “ ‘All subject approval, contracts to individual my be taken negotiated no my gross contracts to be where proportion is to less be my previous approval, than following firms except without 50% you negotiate with may principal whom on basis of the 25% any (.Eleven listed.) interest recovered: firms 50%“ by you memo will cover ‘This secured or me contracts covering lumber, poles, posts already signed my ties not for ac- count, except “ ‘Gideon Anderson Lumber Co.
“ ‘Any for me As- contract secured Dealer’s Hardwood sociation. “ agreement ‘It is understood that this to be effect in force and during you actively engage time If, in the proposition. you any reason, work, agreement discontinue the then this canceled only apply will apply construed to contracts agreement may have been period secured under during this it is in force. “ agreement, ‘It is the sense of agreed this is specifically and it mutually we will render each other possible all assistance prosecution hereby. the successful work covered “ ‘Any expenses connection by you work are, incurred course, by you, except be paid necessary that where to draw shippers’ off from the upon books information bring which to prosecute claims, my , P will have do auditors this work. “ special ‘It is understood that partnership this forms between handling particular us for the of'the matters referred memo, subject to memo; the conditions and terms contained in this being liability further no understood that will be me assumed made you, disbursements may liabilities which be contracted by you. kept I fully am be progress informed of the work, prompt report negotiations and to receive of all contracts and made. (Signed) Dahlberg. B. G.
M!emo: “ agreed accepted by ‘The above is to and me day this 13th July, “ ‘(Signed) Curry.’ Chas. C. expense, plaintiff his own persons, “At interviewed firms com- panies might possibly against have claims the railroads for overcharges. By correspondence he contacted innumerable shippers. period His over a extended more years. activitiеs than two From *6 ties lumber, posts, and shippers poles contracts time time of defendant. in the name contracts were taken were obtained. All assistance, some were his and by plaintiff were or with Some obtained were not directed obtained The claims thus obtained otherwise. against all alone, went railroads against any one railroad against One of the railroads intrastate in Missouri. had done business was the were directed which a considerable' volume of the claims the receivership time of at the Frisco Railroad. Said road was ’’ parties. present between the regard are de- to the Frisco wdth claims Defendant’s activities agreed facts, in an as follows: scribеd statement Railway went the Company into May 1913, the Frisco “On Judge a administered Circuit hands of receiver and was thereafter the Eastern Division in the District Court of Sanborn United States expired. The intervening petitions filing of Missouri. Time pe- application intervening court to that defendant filed file Judge had. Sanborn would titions for each Frisco claimant he Special Master application grant to file referred the leave Special Master, before Fauntleroy. the hearing There was a recommending granted file the inter- report a leave be he filed that petitions. filed. A motion inter- vening petition Each in each petition make more specific. Receiver vention thе was filed argued briefed the Master over- These motions were before a in each. Each filed ruled. The Receiver filed' answers intervenor were They were The motion to strik out. overruled. interventions hearing Special thereon purpose consolidated a hearing hearing occupying days Pending A had. Master. hearing propriety Plan re- Judge on the Sanborn had hearing. represented organization. These at intervenors Judge objections, and these protests and Sanborn overruled their appealed Appeals other to the Circuit Court intervenors Frisco, Eighth No. Before case Houck Circuit. Fauntleroy Special hearing in that Court Master was reached for interlocutory accounting in each interven- entered an order for an intervening Thereafter settlement was had of all the claims tion. first receivership, appears A to the Frisco Exhibit Fisse, On petition Dahlberg cause. amended supra.] proceeds committee of October intervenors received committee.) Defendant member of of such settlement.” intervening application petitions to file the Frisco case had following attached: affidavit duly deposes says being “B. first sworn he Dahlberg G-. herein, agent your petitioners your pe- on behalf of is the says that makes oath and the above and titioners stated in facts foregoing petition true knowledge, to the best of information his and belief. Dahlberg
"B. G. "Subscribed and sworn to
before me day th
November J. Boy Mordaunt "Notary Ramsey County, Public Minn.” application claimants, This on was filed behalf of more than all signed Dahlberg of whose are thereto B. "by names G. their agent.” papers signed Other in the case in the manner. same ranged These $50,000. in $100 claims amount about as much as Many of them were for more than After com- $1000. was suit menced, plaintiff assigned interest in banks his to two his security collateral his indebtedness them. He was also adjudged bankrupt thereafter bankruptcy his ease been has kept open pending the result of this case. him, Other by activities of defendant procured under contracts by facts, him, agreed in the related statement of as follows: employed appear counsel to in the case of State “Defendant v. & Co.,
Missouri C. A.
reported
Railroad
265 Mo.
also
in
employed
prosecute
counsel to
the
Delano,
claim White v.
Receiver
reported
Wabash,
the
in
employed
"In the Missouri Pacific and Iron Mountain receivership in the reorganization ap- roads, employed the counsel to said defendant peal and protect by the confirmation the sale of said roads receiverships. Judge the intervenors in said Hook of Circuit protest еmployed Court overruled said counsel defendant in the appeal case, reported which was 38. Fed. That Court Judge affirmed the decision of Hook and at the instance of defend- an application ant for a of certiorari applied writ was for and denied by Supreme Court United the case reported States 491. U. S. 67 L. Ed.
"In
receivership
the Wabash
there
Special
was
before
tried
Koenig
Master
case of
Special
Wabash and the
Master filed
a report recommending
petitions
the intervening
be dismissed
Freight
because the Maximum
Rate Acts of Missouri of 1905 and
discriminatory.
by
1907 were
case
exceptions
That
heard on
exceptions.
Judge Sanborn, who
Thereupоn
sustained the
the Wa-
appealed the case to the
Appeals,
bash Railroad
Circuit Court of
reported
judgment below,
affirmed the
which
“The intervenors in the filed judgment deficiency York Co. of New for a Equitable Trust defendant, attorneys employed on represented by and were Appeals, which affirmed the Eighth to the Circuit Court of appeal to have the intervenors judgment below. Efforts made States, the United Supreme ease reviewed Court refused issue writ certiorari. defendant, attempted represented intervenors,
“The matter referred to receivership to assets. The Wabash uncover hearings argu- Babbitt, who on the same and Special Master report presented He made a to which the intervenors ments thereon. Judge Paul, exceptions to who some their Sanborn at St. sustained case, parties appealed the exceptions and others. Both overruled were made the Wabash receiver- Nos. 6156 Settlements the docket.” ship those eases were on before reached *8 by facts, only appear stipulations evidence and These not from but fully petition. addition plaintiff’s fourth stated in amended setting describing contract out the terms of the sued on and defendant, pe- the first of this plaintiff of both and сount activities tition states: prior and a time July 9, long
“On for and was selling engaged buying prior thereto had been in the business of and posts, July 9, 1914, prior ... On lumber, poles ties. expert a thereto, by vocation commerce defendant was railroads, chiefly attempting engaged the work of to obtain from commodities, refunds shippers, on behalf of of various and numerous overcharges unlawfully ship- said from for exacted said railroads operation con- pers, method of obtain and the defendant’s agree whereby shippers from to under- tracts said defendant would overcharges shippers take the collection on behalf of at his said contingent expense upon stipulated a оwn a consideration based percentages from rail- percentage or recovered the amounts shippers behalf of defendant made claims roads in whom repeated incorporated against (This is refer- the railroads.” or counts.) ence in all other equitable seeking to reform the an counterclaim
Defendant filed brief, on. as follows: contract This described defendant’s sued is “Appellant knew he at the time drew contract that claims this Louis, being Court of St. filed United States District appeals know Missouri. He didn’t know and could not where taken go, hence, court he Supreme from that would inserted ‘the handle Court of United States’ as the next tribunal that would No person the mаtter after the trial in the District Court. reasonable any made the contract; they have made have would would court trial but contract read: ‘In the claims are settled after ease appellate court, percentage a certain before tried in an cases court, a allowed, go appellate should be if to triál ” might percentage (Perhaps be different be allowed.’ this should ground that, party to be a said mutual mistake on the since neither a lawyer, they this know would not that Circuit Appeals existed?) Courts of appears
When
clearly
plain
it
a
proper
the record
any
tiff
entitled
appellate
is not
relief
is
whatever,
justified,
duty,
though
if in
to so
even
fact it
its
declare
sponte
question
must raise the decisive
sua
result would be
Massey-Harris
a reversal.
Harvester
v.
Reserve
Co.
Federal
Bank,
L.,
907 . . . so, to do and where persons not licensed law practice of .. . . actions instigate justify prosecute it, to facts practice,” may suppress to such unlawful appropriate be ' Austin, 467, Mo. 101 S. 340 has action been taken. [Clark Attorney General, v. McKittrick, Roy ex inf. (2d)W. (2d) 895; 852, 102 W. Clark Co.,& Mo. S. Dudley C. S. Term, at App.), 18725, No. decided March C. (K. Reardon of Court 1937, Supreme Rule No. yet reported; see not 36.] recogni powers in exercised its inherent has thus This court Department (as Judicial responsibility tion its head in superintending “general control'over with State Government Constitution) public courts,” to the 3, 6>, ferior Art. Sec. justice. re reach correct If courts
proper administration of be delay, miscarriage justice, denial, cases must sults without thorough who have presented practitioners prepared and character, and training, good moral legal who are known to be of recognize them duty to conduct who their the court as officers long through established accordance ethical standards selves in Richards, necessary experiencе interest. public re [In protect ignor 907, public Mo. To (2d) S. from lawyers, sufficiently adequate dishonesty, who do not have ance and represent properly or who do not to be others preparation fitted to recognize public duty, permitted cannot be high character of their legal competition can business, to continue transact nor unethical legal re be source. court permitted any This has business idly by eyes ears “to see fused set with its closed and its covered ‘ ’ ‘ ’ ’’ evil officers evil no in the conduct of of the court. no hear necessary, Having stated, above it can acted as when action seemed consistently a how enforce the one herein. cоntract like involved position To do a so would be denial it has taken and 'would directly everything contradict it declared to has essential improvement of of the bar in the interest of the standards people welfare of the State. only permit practice
Refusal unlawful and unlicensed has legisla- the policy been court it is also accord with the policy Assembly tive quarter General for'more than century. (La-ws 1905, 11695-11703, Secs. p. now R. S. 1929), declared, minimum educational standards were and this charge complete admitting was directed take and exclusive licensing attorneys practice (Sec. in all courts. Ever since R. 1889), “practice has been misdemeanor law in licensed, being court of record without and enrolled.” sworn Over years ago, by approved December act unlicensed *10 court,' practice contempt every attorney was declared of licensed required prescribed oath “take the the Constitution faithfully practice.” an oath he will demean himself in his 11704-11706, E. now E. S. pp. Sees. [Vol. 1929.] Laymen Eecognizing obligations. law practicing no such undertake Legislature, mentioned, this and for the other herein reasons 99, now police (Laws 1915, p. under its enacted in 1915 powers, 1929) 11692-93-94, pro “primarily Secs. intended to E. S. statutes to re public services, tect from the rendition certain deemed quire special training on part performing fitness and of those same, by requisite persons lawfully possess qualifi held Company, supra.] cations.” These v. St. Union Trust Louis [State prohibit “any (unauthorized) person, association or corporation” business;” “practice from in or “law engaging doing of law” prohibit attorneys dividing compensation licensed or there fees any attorney; any a for with a act person not make licensed recovery misdemeanor, providing penalty; define treble further “practice drawing law” or papers, to include “the pleadings (representative) capacity or performance documents any act any proceedings pending connection with or prospective before record, commissioner, any body, court of or board, referee committee or having authority commission law or con constituted to settle ;” advising troversies “law define business” or be “the counseling any person, firm, valuable consideration associa corporation any tion or law drawing pro secular or the or curing assisting drawing for a valuable consideration or any paper, affecting document or relating instrument or secular rights doing any or the act for valuable consideration a repre capacity, obtaining tending sentative securing obtain or or tending to any person, secure for firm, corporation association or any property or property rights whatsoever.” While sought herein prior enforced entered into these (they approved 22, 1915), were statutes March plaintiff’s most of operations, during years more two thereafter, than its after effective date and aided direct Practically of it. violations activities, defendant’s under the contracts secured him, place took effect, after these were in perhaps laws yet have not terminated. Berthold-Jennings Lumber Co. St. L., (C. M. A.), I. & S. Railroad Co. C. 80 Fed. (2d) Moreover, any statute, without right would have the to define what practicing constituted v. Austin, law. Since most supra.] [Clark of the railroads were put involved receivership, under much of the litigation over these claims necessarily handled Federal courts. That did not make throughout activities defendant’s proper, nor does it afford enforcing basis this court contract herein involved. regardless
But prohibiting of these statutes such conduct as
909
contemplated by
herein,
regardless
the contract
and
of this court’s
duty
regulate
lawyers
practice
conduct
and
of law
proper
justice (either
the interest of
administration of
are
of which
good grounds for affirmance of
judgment),
this
the contract sued
only
light
on herein is
even if considered
void
in the
of common-law
champerty
The law of
maintenance
rules.
and
is in force in this
v. M.
F.
A. & P.
Ins.
327,
State.
Glass
220 Mo.
119
[Breeden
576;
1083;
v. Henderson,
498,
S. W.
Kelerher
203 Mo.
101 S. W.
Phelps Manecke,
App. 139,
221; Taylor
v.
119 Mo.
v.
Perkins,
157 S.
App. 246,
Barratry
by
171 Mo.
W.
is
statute
122.]
offense.
3926,
criminal
R. S.
purpose
[Sec.
1929.]
оf champerty
law
maintenance
to prevent
inter-
officious
meddling
purposes
speculation
in the affairs of others for
unworthy motives,
other
prevent
strong
and to
influential
early English
oppressing
men
the weak.
times
R.
L.C.
[5
4;
J. 234,
7-10;
see.
11 C.
secs.
4 Blackstone’s Commentaries
135, Chap. 10, sees.
is now
It
considered to be advanta
11-12-13.]
geous many people,
financially
who
pay
are
able to
cash fees
legal services,
representation
obtain
for establishment of their
rights by contracting
regularly
lawyers
with
upon a con
licensed
tingent
recognition
fact, early
basis.
of this
common-law rules
have been drastically
agreements. They
to allow
modified
are
(Secs. 11716, 1.1717,
authorized
1929)
our statutes
R. S.
which аlso
attorneys
create
lien in
However,
favor of
for their enforcement.
are
there
still
attorneys
contracts
the law
forbidden
of champerty
Perkins,
to make.
v.
App. 246,
171 Mo.
157
[Taylor
122;
Id.,
S. W.
App. 204,
see
Mo.
This court to enforce contract, parties placed themselves, leave where have reasons City Phelps Manecke, Appeals stated Kansas supra, follows: frequently transaction,
“If the law two catches evil it will punish both, but it nevеr lends the assistance of the to one courts promise. to enforce the law these other’s Not favors promise more, promisor less, utterly or the but it is so indiffer- *12 machinery to refuse to ent between the two as move at the re- its quest of either.” judgment is affirmed. opinion
PER foregoing by Hyde, C., adopted CURIAM: The is opinion Douglas, the of the Banc. concur, except /., Court en All sitting. not Rehearing.
On Motion for HYDE, Many rehearing questions urged on for motion C. fully have been the oipnion, discussed in the it contended that is illegality raised issue the contract sued on should not have been by sponte, the court sua waived because it was an affirmative defense by answer, purely failure to state it in the and becаuse the case was by private controversy public policy the practice which of law laymen presented by answer, A pleadings. the sufficient aspects regulation if public even the broader interest in the practice of law be disregarded, illegality is that affirmatively by plaintiff’s shown contract was facts stated petition, fourth and face the record amended therefore on the proper appears it that to asked. plaintiff was not the relief entitled 215; Q. 818, (1892), R. C. L. sec. v. Brown Scott B. Div. 147, Shohoney Q., Co., 131, O. & K. C. 231 Mo. c. Railroad l. 1059; Oscanyan 132 W. S. v. Winchester Arms 103 U. S. Gilbert, (2d) 775; Waychoff 68 Fed. L. Ed. Noonan v. Waychoff (Pa.), 163 Atl. 86 A. L. R. It is unfortunate apparently plaintiff’s are the real case. creditors losers in this sought They naturally repayment properly out and which funds might they possession. reason to believe come into his Never assignment theless, only is their claim based'on from him can and it higher rise, no than its source. public interest,
In the matter of it can make no difference, as plaintiff suggests, Austin, Clark v. Mo.
(2d) question practice brought of unlawful and raised advisory by before the court action of court’s committee. Cer tainly, proper appoint if advisory it is the court committee investigate questions concerning and raise such prevention un- surely court, proper not before this then it practice lawful cases question pending in a case before raise practice practices сonstitute basis and unlawful where unlawful punish asked. do otherwise one viola relief To would for the law court believes has and another. This that it tion of reward duty regard to concern itself both with responsibility practitioners with proper practice conduct of licensed unlawful legal required by end that services of law to the others justice, will public, essential be rendered to the administration investigation have to be properly pre found those who been pared by conforming standards, to do so strict educational higher have the character conform to who demonstrate that ordinarily of ethical conduct than neces standards considered fiduciary do sary in involve samе business relations relationships. ability, To such standards confidential enforce necessary knowledge conduct, public pre it is interest them, engaging comply who will vent those not or cannot competition legal work who must with those observe do here, when, employment ad them, especially obtained *13 sought by vertising soliciting being and rather than out because ability. integrity (Clark), Public known and Interest pre 2 Law Review One of most Mo. effective means 161.] venting by practioners prevent encroachment such unauthorized is to “chiseling” by pres from as profiting “high them such activities Legislature legal solicitation for No doubt sure” business. our 1929, when passed 11694, this in mind it Section Revised Statutes subject only fine, which not made acts misdemeanor to but such recovery practitioner from an provided also unlawful of treble compensation. him for by amount his collected Plaintiff contends also that contract should be enforced his Legislature was made before the because it enacted 11692- Sections These upon Revised 1929. Statutes sections based police (Clark v. Austin, supra), well power and it is “parties remove their settled that cannot transactions from the powder making by of dominant constitutional about reach contracts Co., v. B. & O. 294 U. 240; Sup. them.” Railroad S. [Norman 79 only powerless L. Ed. Not Ct. individuals against proper power State, exercise of the police Legislature specificаlly by even the .prohibited but the Constitu way. abridging tion from in Art. While [Sec. XII.] plaintiff Dahlberg further not practicing law, contends was by stated principles Austin, is settled Clark supra, and Dudley inf. McKittrick v. & State ex Mo. 102 W. S. no
(2d) 895, and it serve useful purpose would to discuss them again case. discussion may in this Further collation and of eases be by of Pa. reference U. Law Review found 83 U. Pa. 69; 29 Review
Law Review Mich. Law Review 41 Yale Law argued from question public policy involved is obtain standpoint good shippers to public policy to allow it was by charges fixed from in violation of refunds of exacted them rates parties assisting such State, and that the here the laws were recovery question purpose. one will propriety No such Dahlberg’s accomplish it, reasonable and lawful methods but either) (nor plaintiff’s not a crusade purely interest was altruistic seeking em against violating He not even railroads the law. was only. activity ployment an was accountant His induced merely rates computing the work gain, idea his own not from controlling rights of claimants involved but from the settlement acting only determining in this situation and of for them up also enforcing of their them in the courts amount claims but highest an to the this State and He intensive Nation. made solicitation, to obtain personally agents, of claims so control re that he could obtain himself half of what those entitled to such say He receive. authorized what action should funds would was when; emplоy lawyers thought to do he be taken and what expert should be done. Services of' no accountant and rate helpful necessary only carrying litigation, on doubt not entirely proper it would have been for him have been em ployed paid be claimants, whatever that kind of (or paid contingent on a basis), work worth even to but that right lawyer give him be-the did as well as the accountant claimants, constituting legal representa for these himself their carry litigation. says to control their, finally tive on Plaintiff Dahlberg not; that, practicing law, even if he was and, citing Henderson, Mo. 498, 1083, says Kelerher that the separate and Dahlberg contract between and distinct Dahlberg Shippers contracts bеtween and would not *14 any illegality be tainted with therefrom. This is also answered Austin, stated Clark v. principles supra, ex and State inf. Dudley Company, supra; McKittrick & appears it further plaintiff’s contract violates another precept public vital agreement namely: is an policy; personal It make solicitation lawyers laymen law business neither nor to obtain per can be which, nor to have for them. Moreover, to do done mitted the contract specifically provided to enforce plaintiff seeks that “this forms a between us partnership for the special handling of the particular to.” referred matters rehearing overruled. motion foregoing opinion
PER CURIAM: The Hyde, C., on motion adopted No. One is rehearing opinion Division of except J., Douglas, concur, All en Banc. sitting.