53 Tenn. 167 | Tenn. | 1871
delivered the opinion of the court.
Complainant filed his bill in the Chancery Court at Sevierville, to enjoin the prosecution of an action of law pending in- the Circuit Court of Sevier county, in which M. F. Smith was plaintiff, and complainant was defendant.
The suit was instituted on a note for $700 executed in April, 1867, by complainant to Camp & Dug-
Complainant alleges that he retained Camp & Dug-gan as lawyers in four cases in the Circuit Court of Sevier county, one criminal and three civil cases; that in 1866, he gave his note to them for $50 as a retaining fee, and agreed to pay them $100 in each of said causes that might be tried in said Circuit Court.
He alleges further, that in April, 1867, being old and of weak mind, and greatly harrassed and annoyed and troubled about his business, the said Camp took advantage of these things and overreached him and practiced a gross fraud on him, in procuring him against his will to execute the note for $700, when in fact at the time he was not owing Camp & Dug-gan more than $350. Smith, the assignee of the note, and Camp & Duggan were made defendants to the bill. Smith answers that he received the note after it was due, but denies that the assignment was fraudulent or for any other than a valuable consideration. Defendants Camp & Duggan answer separately: they state that they were employed to attend to six cases then pending in the Circuit Court of Sevier, one against complainant for larceny, one against him for robbery, and four civil cases for trespasses, involving damages claimed to an amount between $60,000 and $70,000, but they deny that they undertook to attend to these cases for $100 each, for such as might be tried, and state that there was no contract for any specific amount of compensation, until April, 1867, when the note for $700 was executed. They state
They deny that any advantage was taken of complainant, or that he executed the note unwillingly, or that he was overreached, or in any way improperly influenced to give the note. They state that the several items of their account were made out and shown to complainant, that he was . satisfied with their charges, and freely and understandingly executed his note, agreeing that the charges were reasonable, and receiving from them a receipt in full by note, in which they agreed to continue to attend to the only remaining case. They repel emphatically every charge of fraud, or improper conduct, and insist that their services were reasonably worth $750. They insist that complainant was fully capable of attending intelligently to his own business, and that he fully understood the transaction and freely assented thereto.
Complainant wholly fails to support the allegations of his bill as to any special contract, or as to the number of cases in which Camp & Duggan were employed by him, and as to any fraud or improper conduct in the procurement of the $700 note. On
That the onus shall devolve upon the attorney to show that the contract was free from all fraud, undue influence, and exorbitancy of demand. That the attorney having performed his part of the contract reasonably and with due skill and diligence, without regard to the result of the litigation, shall be entitled to recover the amount specified, provided he brings the contract within these principles. We have already stated that according to the proof defendants Camp & Duggan have shown satisfactorily that the execution of the note was not procured by fraud, either actual or constructive, but that it was executed freely, willingly and understandingly. The only other question is, did they contract for a greater benefit than their services were reasonably worth ?
On this subject the evidence is conflicting to some extent, but when carefully analyzed, there is not such conflict as at first blush appears.
We deem it unnecessary to enter into an analysis of the evidence. After a very close scrutiny 'of the evidence, the Chancellor came to the conclusion that the charge of $>750 for the services rendered was fair and reasonable, and we entirely concur with his conclusion. We therefore affirm his decree, except as to