Hindman v. Pittsburgh Trust Co.

Citations

• 266 Pa. 204
• 109 A. 876
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 535

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Attorney-at-law—Compensation for services — Several clients — Joint or several liability — Implied promise — Evidence— Amounts received from other parties.</p> <p>1. An attorney-at-law may recover from one of three baseball clubs for services rendered, such club where there was no joint interest nor any joint undertaking by the three clubs to pay the attorney nor any agreement to pay him except such as the law would imply from services rendered on request to each of them; an implied promise follows the nature of the consideration, and as that is joint or several, so will the promise be.</p> <p>2. A single undertaking for the performance of several duties is in its nature divisible, and this is especially true in the employment of counsel.</p> <p>3. In an action by the attorney against one of the clubs, evidence is properly excluded, which tends to show the amount the plaintiff had received from the other clubs.</p> <p>Evidence — Cross-examination—Contents of bill — Bill in court— Offer of compromise — Appeal.</p> <p>4. In an action by an attorney to recover for services where a bill made out by the plaintiff is offered in evidence, the plaintiff cannot be cross-examined as to the contents of the bill which the evidence, undisputed at that time, showed was an offer of compromise. He could not in any event properly be cross-examined as to the contents of a paper that was present in court.</p> <p>5. Where the trial judge leaves it to the jury to find whether the bill was in fact an offer of compromise, and the jury so finds, the defendant cannot, on appeal, complain that the bill was excluded.</p>