TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co.

JOSEPH W. TAYLOR v. THE BLACK DIAMOND COAL MINING COMPANY

Taylor v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 25 P. 51 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 4, 1890
Docket
No. 12965
Judges
McFarland
Citations
25 P. 5186 Cal. 5891890 Cal. LEXIS 1072
Syllabus
Assignment — Attorney’s Fees—Partnership — Surviving Partner.— Although an attorney cannot assign a contract for his services to be rendered, and substitute another attorney in his place, without the consent of his client, he may assign a debt substantially due for services rendered; and where a firm of attorneys was to receive a certain compensation for their services, provided they should accomplish certain results, the surviving partner may, after the services which they promised to render, and the ends which they agreed to accomplish, were all practically rendered and accomplished, assign all the right and title of the firm in the contract for such services, and all the moneys due or to become due thereunder, and the assignee may recover upon the contract.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McFarland

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McFarland, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of Hoyt & McKee, attorneys at law, to recover from defendant a balance due for professional services. Judgment went for plaintiff in the court below, *590 from which, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

Hoyt & McKee made a contract with defendant, by which they were to receive a certain compensation for their services as attorneys, provided they should accomplish certain results. Afterwards, McKee, as surviving member of the firm of Hoyt & McKee (Hoyt having died before the services were quite all rendered), assigned to the plaintiff, Taylor, all the right and title of said firm in said contract, and all the moneys due or to become due thereunder. Appellant contends that the assignment was invalid, upon the ground that an attorney cannot assign a contract for his services, and substitute another attorney in his place, without the consent of his client, such contract being special, and founded upon personal qualities. The general principle thus invoked is no doubt sound, but we do not think that it applies to the case at bar. A careful examination of the pleadings, the evidence, and the findings shows that the services which Hoyt & McKee promised to render, and the ends which they agreed to accomplish, were all practically rendered and accomplished before the assignment to plaintiff, and that appellant had received the full benefit of those services and the accomplishments of those ends before said assignment. The assignment, therefore, was substantially the assignment of a debt due.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11913: 11925: 11931: 11938: 11940: 11947: 11976: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.62 Cal. App. 3d 389 (1976)
  2. Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.182 P.2d 182 (Cal. 1947)
  3. Florance v. Kresge93 F.2d 784 (4th Cir. 1938)
  4. Sumner v. Nevin87 P. 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)
  5. Murphy v. Luthy Battery Co.239 P. 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
  6. Union Collection Co. v. Oliver137 P. 1082 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.62 Cal. App. 3d 389 (1976)
  2. Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.182 P.2d 182 (Cal. 1947)
  3. Stein v. Cobb100 P.2d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
  4. Florance v. Kresge93 F.2d 784 (4th Cir. 1938)
  5. Fenn v. Pickwick Corp.4 P.2d 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
  6. Murphy v. Luthy Battery Co.239 P. 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list