Kiefer v. Lara

Citations

• 56 Wash. 43
• 104 P. 1102
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 843

Syllabus

<p>Attorney and Client — Action for Services — Evidence of Employment — Admissibility. In an action to recover for legal services rendered in an action against defendant and a corporation, upon an issue as to wbetber the contract of employment included the defense of the action on behalf of the corporation; it is error to exclude defendants’ offer in evidence of a complaint in a former action against the defendants, for the same services, which alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants to defend “for them,” as claimed by defendants, as it tended to support the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs were not employed to defend for the corporation.</p> <p>Same — Instructions. In an action to recover for legal services rendered in the defense of an action assailing the title of the defendants, and of their grantee in a warranty deed made by the defendants, in which there was an issue as to whether the defendants had employed the plaintiff to defend the action on behalf of such grantee, it is erroneous and misleading to instruct the jury that a general warranty deed runs with the land and binds the grantor to defend his title or estate, when the defendants were defending their title; as such defense would inure to the benefit of the grantee and they were under no obligation to employ counsel for the grantee.</p>