Thorp v. Ramsey

Citations

• 51 Wash. 530
• 99 P. 584
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1225

Syllabus

<p>Pleading — Certainty—Bill op Particulars. The denial of a motion to make a complaint more definite and certain is not error when the same result is accomplished by ordering a bill of particulars.</p> <p>Same — -Attorney and Client — Services. In an action to recover for services in conducting two suits, the defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars itemizing the charges for each step taken preparing for trial, but it is sufficient if he is informed that the services were performed in connection with those certain actions.</p> <p>Attorney and Client- — Services — Value — Evidence — Competency. In an action to recover the reasonable value of services of an attorney in a trial, the files and records in the cause are competent, whether they were sole attorneys in the cause or not.</p> <p>Same. In an action .by a firm of attorneys to recover for their services, which were intermingled, it is not error to exclude cross-examination of a plaintiff as to the reasonable value of his individual services.</p> <p>Parties — Partnership—Actions—Suit in Firm Name — Attorney and Client. Where two persons form a copartnership for the practice of the law and the firm is entitled to the emoluments of the firm and each of its members, the firm may maintain an action in the firm name to recover for services of any member!</p> <p>Attorney and Client — Relation—Substitution—Instructions. A positive instruction that an attorney’s employment is personal and cannot be delegated without the client’s consent, and that a client would not be liable for the services of one member of a firm if neither that member or the firm were employed by him, is not nullified by a subsequent instruction that the rule forbidding the delegation of authority has no application to the members of a co-partnership.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Verdict. The verdict of a jury upon a question of attorney’s fees will not be disturbed if sustained by competent evidence.</p>