Smits v. Hogan

Citations

• 35 Wash. 290
• 77 P. 390
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 447

Syllabus

<p>Champerty — Attorney and Client — Agreement to Pay Costs and Prosecute fob Contingent Fee. It is doubtful if the doctrine of champerty was ever in force in this state, and if it was, it was repealed by Bal. Code, § 5165, declaring that the compensation of attorneys shall be left to the parties, and hence an agreement whereby the attorney agrees to pay the costs and to prosecute a case for a percentage of the recovery is legal.</p> <p>Same — Damages to Defendant by Reason of Champertous Agreement — Malice — Malicious Prosecution. In an action brought against an attorney for damages for maliciously inciting an insolvent person to prosecute an unfounded action against the plaintiff, and which was prosecuted under a champertous agreement, it is proper to instruct that the plaintiff must show malice and want of probable cause, as in an action for malicious prosecution, and the action is not maintainable as a claim for damages for champerty irrespective of malice, since the doctrine of champerty does not prevail in this state.</p>