*1 REPORTER 264 SOUTHWESTERN a as indorser of but of in favor of it against said remanded trial of tke for fraud ty; legality cause pended tract to a 2. 3. Contracts torney’s advice, employed was ices to secure securing a dentally appear, it services. attorney of contract for amount for consummate an that and 1. RUMBAUGH v. MORRISS. tonio. attorney to property held reasonable. attorney’s services. $4,500 for legality recovery Appeal torney. Attorney Attorney and client Contracts Pleading held effecting grants An award of Allegation If an A contract in so Robt. W. attorney praying valid, notwithstanding Williams, school board of action a suit not to held addition held in connection June far as it attorney from District favorable vote from of contract illegal, client to a by in tlie sale of owned issues against <§=3147 attorney’s recovery for attorney’s @=>140 valid. @=> effect sale recovery trade recovery, though defendant Williamson in tke district court B. 16, tke note sued it is exchange recovery inis July cross-action 140—Client appealed Terrell, which a client state a grants client 1924. between tkem. —Incidental presents cause of action Williamson, attorney defendant Williams reversed, no Allegations of real attorney’s client @=>143 against in favor 1924.) way dependent Court, defeat a another Rehearing Denied @=>141 cause of action. from, Judge. recovery real sale contract in cash. to a Texas. San An- cannot set no obstacle to a a school board to property, if —Contract estate to on. in a reasonable (No. 7193) Bexar Coun- of fraud —-Award advising him, in so for anotker client, in cross-bill stock, exchange to assist in services. tke Williams affirmed; thus ex- in favor attorney of serv- against act $50,000 $61,000 far as on at- cause upon S. suck, inci- con- at- il- ceived no benefits. under ployed turn lee take insistence tion known tonio. lant’s lee to consummate the pellee cross-action. fendant pellee, upon pellant’s tion of ices of member and a appellant, to thereafter Antonio school board 000 for conferring witl( street, change ery vice of lant on the advice San appellee sent for attorney’s of action San T. H. Mason Action judgment over COBBS, sustaining appellant’s proposition. Rumbaugk, sum of acceptance by against appellant Antonio, Antonio, therewith. thereto, influence, cross-action as the did Electric appellee, Ridgeway pay, and, acting was no error committed appeals. performed nothing by the Williams by cross-action. in assist committed appellant, $500, making J. fees, appellee. connection with then appellee or members Saladino of real estate for Judgment him an additional in filed a and its in It is not advice, that would Affirmed. exception A. Morriss appellee. to recover securing a favorable vote trade, which defendant then owned Appellant' suit was in appellee advised all situated in Mm to socure the serv- vote of the There is no for a school board M. number to M. such There was suit. Saladino, and, conveyance, for a total A. Saladino appellee ground that, solely upon of the school board $1,500 for his serv prayed from which he germane J. a contract of Park, employ him, That, attorney, agreed the sale Hallam, justify Arnold, cash against alleged: filed appellant paid strike demanded an Saladino,- and wanted he claimed member of advice prayed exceptions $500 considera- allegation appellant, here by appel- the court hut in connec- both of botk the ad filed recov- acting appel- appel appel addi- That any- soon San em $1,- up ap re- re a Digests Key-Numbered <§ss>For cases see same and KEY-NUMBER m ail and Indexes Electric Elores tween ices in connection baugh property Looking Elores street follows: was shown property Electric nection gal advice, according viously changed of That' he saved. formed. disputed testimony. the defendant from to school answer White Co. v. Writing Electric claim deed from dence to see what benefits filing of the defendant consideration the amount quired work, (4) Examining swer, capacity “What “In The court As a fact reasonable amount be alleged witnesses, undisputed question services, release. exchanged by And stating ascertaining determined Was formal answer appellant foregoing Morriss, is a fact in suit of A. Saladino it is involved. involved, and fitness of the after remission if was the Park on South traded Park the jury_ board and by appellant is any, the services the school board if correctly so and the appellee’s personal services, le- (8) Rearranging case, a matter of property being placed warranty Rumbaugh, payment assistance: property; the evidence any, as an property abstract of to the and was amount. question, you may and Saladino. case, nature $85,000, piece length issue reasonable is, the verdict? City the reasonable value Elores such services.” (3) Preparing and answered that was there sufficient the school rendered benefit, to worth attorney, (2) Writing five letters interests of the Electric submitted plaintiff inquired about and'the sole be (5) of such deeds. S. as to the is shown it a valid contract? street actually whereby suit of sale and in which Writing concern (1) Preparing and part Rumbaugh? labor if value, $35,000 in secured title to South deal, one at the instance any, Electric case, to Mr. at Antonio. Elores RUMBAUGH Now, of taxes (7) to the occupied Rumbaugh. rendered $4,500 was sell to the South lease. stake, derived if to sell to that view. employed Compton- value, take into $70 was one question Writing at in con- the un- any, the re- let us street would be Rum- large filing Park Park that, proposition quit- $85,- cash him.” jury per and counsel evi- (264 be- ob- the the (9) (6) by by 3.W.) alleged actually though court in a puted, contract. transaction or its mouth of pear illegal. prominent contract was motion. $35,000 money cause for Bonding facts are sents no obstacle Co. dered in contract signed strength puted their things cess in the thereunder, affirmed. We by facts relative Saladino and the of the services he L. Ed. ment oring Oscanyan Winchester, *2 v. MERRISS Judgments Having fully [3-5] The property gave. undisputed doors approval property be written feel v. dependent assignments poise, facts in this looks with disfavor to secure the respectfully to the 545; Trinity honorable Coonrod the trial that we The Co. in which he is not is to an On Motion for complaint connection with that greatly disputed v. It think feature unusual worth nowhere suit is for rather become (Tex. may for services. both, does, enforce necessity makes face of the appellee’s right are not court, property dispose acts in this ease facts. Were the bench and bar right, considered this find no rather (Tex. argument. worth are court, services to of error and incidentally of the Com. submit of law not seem but if case, of either detracts from than all sometimes entitled pleaded no difference that irascible, Portland to set it does not but its always Civ. personal some App.) main support which will novel. Rehearing. reversible realm; all has shown we have never had performance. part pleading, 103 U. S. It does not so affirming quoting App.) here. We facts the school party. to have a be and in addition lawyers inwas predicated up- appear, case; 229 S. W. over the trade Cement Co. and making of an case, trial court sale. shown of this state. trials. propositions have opinion a clear Appellant’s any illegal true, 230 W. are undis- lie presented, undisputed the meet with error as- property. say ugly It closes Brewing endeav 261, 26 and all to lose If finding undis- it the differ 'what says: to be there valid gives judg- part pre ren The can- 199 thé ex- v. is is 264 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER with counsel. We think under the facts were known facts proper degree properly af- exercise of a law of this case can of care could been known to him. This firmed. A careful examination the em- alleged, swer shows that it is nowhere *3 aforesaid, as and pleaded, employment appellee, as that the of negligence advising was of this defend- represent him, law to pay $1,000 ant to said Saladino said of and sum void, and where- the reason stated" pay agreeing to him an additional $500.” of it was claimed void. tenth, Again, paragraph plead an- of said does set that swer, appellant says: broker, entitled, not a real estate lawyer, apd his commission that claim alleges that, “This defendant account of legal broker; was for services of as instead plaintiff advising the general then that was followed denial. This with a insisting $1,000 that this defendant said interposed Saladino, is the to tained defense this defendant has sus- except $1,000, loss the claim of the which is far than the negligence, paragraph etc. In 7 of his plaintiff. defendant the swer, among things, appellant says: prays “Wherefore this the that required “That an affirmative plaintiff nothing by take this suit this majority of the members school of said board defendant have the in order to consummate said sale to school plaintiff legal in- with represented plaintiff thereon, being paid by terest the amount so fendant that he he could secure one believed this defendant to the said A. Saladino and for member additional school of said board to vote the further sum of $350 as. reasonable value acceptance proposition for the of defendant’s abstract, deed, legal the and other docu- already which, in the addition to fav- plaintiff ments retained and withheld acceptance orable to the thereof have se- would from prays likewise acceptance cured the by of defendant’s general relief and for board, plaintiff failed to secure costs of court.” thereupon rep- plaintiff additional vote. The very resented to this Much, defendant that he many has ‘been said and authorities friendly Saladino, represented he whom cited our statement that it did not lie possessed great influence certain with in the mouth of defendant to his ber of said school and that said Saladino contract defense is to defeat this The whole secure the of said member vote predicated affirmatively on al- acceptance school for the de- of de- leged negligence of Morriss in proposition purchase him fendant’s employ property, plaintiff Saladino to fendant’s said procure quote defendant to Saladino. The he show. We page 6, appellant’s sent for Sala- rehearing, dino, and, plain- conferring with give viewpoint, to be fair order his represented tiff to this defendant that said follows: his Saladino wanted illegality will now show such employ him, advised defendant to upon by solely contract sued upon Mr. Morriss was clear- ly testimony established relevant introduced the advice and insistence of as his at- upon prov- torney, agreed of this cause. Mr. Morriss said Saladino said employed by ed Rumbaugh that he was Mr. thereafter the but soon Saladino demanded perform $500, connection making with sale or additional total trade of his school board. In his ant to of advised this defend- order establish pay, and, upon value of his the advice Mr. in board baugh, showed that Morriss plaintiff, he was instrumental this defendant bringing the, trade with sum whereby property belonging to Mr. Rum- the vote the member great influence, which was was trad- board vorable to the sition. he with whom claimed fa- acceptance ed propo- As a mat- of defendant’s ter of fact the evidence showed Elec- tric “Acting the advice this de- and that which school to paid fendant traded to was board, Mr. him an $61,900 which, acceptance was worth added $'500 $35,000 cash, the considera- of defendant’s That said school Rumbaugh $96,900 again rejected received board met soon thereafter and property proposition, or a net defendant’s member loss to he had in- testimony present to rebut the riss on meeting. introduced Mr. fluence at said Mor- issue as defendant here ed school member since learn- became relevant to show that Morriss had said Saladino had no influence with said sale, wit, any assistance had no influence Compton-White Company, thereof, serv- and that he unable to ren- A: pro- of Mr. Wendover services of der service value whatever in became curing Saladino. relevant property by of defendant’s CO-OPERATIVE FURNITURE CO. v. SOUTHERN SURETY CO. S.W.) (2(VI gen- paid $350, character tlemen rebuttal of these each they performed. This value of an abstract. testimony gen- under a relevant inconceivable how contention of the of the denial, independent special allega- eral illegality tions of contract. Therefore square contract with Morriss can the connection had with the deal pleading the evidence. proven by At the close of the relevant and without plainly We wish understood objections. case time, nothing now, any other have said or at (cid:127)ployment of Mr. Saladino and the kind expressing any opinion perform as the ices been and did exchanged, fully testimony, established relevant entire was before court. board made a No doubt bad trade. dispute facts so the looking future, upon by either sued Mr. Morriss was tell. us. That matter before *4 or as a of law.” only copied stated in values as appellant. brief face As on its again pellant copy got the benefit of valuable from motion rehearing: complain not m'outh to lie in his does at the performed. But whether “Mr. testified that Mr. Morriss in- not, determined the did troduced him to Mr. Saladino in Morriss’ appellee’s go not services. This does office, professed and that to board parties of its matters or to discuss able to influence a vote of not before it. and make the sale. However, say nothing in will “Mr. there is further on cross-ex- testified ‘Being amination: asked services I was board or what record to show my contract, I will state I any improperly influ- member thereof was any every was to effort I could enced, or that do every help bring individual that could improperly, did com- up closing of that deal. I that in knew in the interest mendable faith to close this deal that there a ma- to favorable to school children. jority vote of opinion is We wish to add that Rumbaugh’s Being to asked what usual, beyond done so what is tended far by copying getting I do with a ma- reference brief, appellant’s pleading, jority vote of the school board favorable to the proposition, anything motion, po- I state that I was to do the inconsistent elucidate majority getting sition of the board; anything I to do motion is overruled. the school board at all. I did some of the see board; spoke I two of proposi- the school board members about this help put tion. I over—that deal thing. the sum and substance the whole I my putting Being share in did asked over. FURNITURE CO. my share, CO-OPERATIVE I did as what I will (No. 1071.) Hargis, CO. SURETY president SOUTHERN I talked to Dr. it, school board about and I talked to Her- also it; bear Peairs about those were two of Texas. Beaumont. bers that I talked to. I did not think it was 12, 1924.) March necessary more, I un- to talk to because Hargis president derstood that Dr. <®=»706(6) Negli- Municipal corporations board. Those two members gence jury. operating truck held for ” I talked to.’ company Whether defendant operating by'it in inspecting a truck hired without first While himself has exhausted brakes, in view of Vernon’s Ann. needlessly many discussed au- well-known Supp. 1918, 820e, Pen. Code art. and whether thorities on the right of the defendant’s driving truck in manner it through during its servant whose control it plea appear display jury. does not in ran into window held his answer. (§=»I77 2. Trial direction —Erroneous verdict appear, however, does held not invited tried to recommen- parties both moved for directed ver- dation Morriss to secure the services of dict, moving defendant also for submission of independently, to assist special issues, if not en- negli- on the sole deal titled to instructed verdict that did not fact gence, because the “is far than prive right him of to have issues sub- them, if evidence raised mitted plaintiff.” This sets contending, did not invite court’s predicated upon alleged illegal a matter directing theory error defendant’s verdict for for affirmative relief to reduce or instructed verdict left seeking action to- no issue be submitted. Key-Numbered Digests in all see KEY-NUMBER same Indexes cases