Hart v. Vidal

In an action to recover the value of services as attorney in a certain suit, it is incompetent to prove the value of plaintiff’s services in another action. A witness, who is not an attorney, is incompetent to prove the value of an attorney’s services.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an action to recover the value of plaintiff's services as attorney in the case of Brown v. Vidal, as laid in the complaint. On the trial, the plaintiff was allowed to prove his services in protecting the defendant’s interest in the same property, in a subsequent suit, between Newland, the receiver appointed in the first suit, and one Keane, who has since purchased the property, and now intervenes in this action to protect the property from an attachment levied herein before his purchase. Vidal, the defendant, makes no defence, and the action is defended by the intervenor, who objected to the introduction of the above testimony, and excepted to the order overruling his objection. Newland, who testified that he was not an attorney at law, but had acted as attorney for several parties during the period. 1849-50, when the plaintiff’s services were rendered, and was conversant with attorneys’ fees at that time, was allowed to prove the value of plaintiff’s services, along with other witnesses who were attorneys; his estimate being the highest of all. The intervenor objected to the witness as incompetent; but the objection was overruled, and his evidence admitted under intervenor’s exception. Judgment was -rendered for plaintiff. Intervenor moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and intervenor appealed.