Case ID: or_87/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Bean", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on briefs September 18,
    affirmed September 25, 1917,
    rehearing denied January 15, 1918.
    SMITH v. ROBINSON.
    
      (167 Pac. 569.)
    
    Trial—Direction of Verdict—Uncontradicted. Evidence.
    1. In an attorney’s action for compensation, where there was no counterclaim and no dispute in material testimony, and there could reasonably be no difference of opinion as to inferences deducible from the evidence, a directed verdict was proper,
    [As to what is deemed to be invasion by the court of the jury’s province, see note in 14 Am. St. Rep. 36.]
    Prom Josephine: Prank M. Calkins, Judge.
    This action to recover money for services as attorney was commenced by Robert G. Smith against Emma G. Robinson. The trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment rendered thereon, defendant appealed. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
    Affirmed.
    Por appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Crawford & Crawford.
    
    Por respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. Asa C. Hough.
    
    In Banc.
   Mr. Justice Bean

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for money commenced in a Justice’s Court in Josephine County. The cause was appealed to the Circuit Court. Judgment went for the plaintiff in both courts and the defendant appeals.

The complaint alleges that between January 1, 1910, and July 1, 1910, plaintiff performed services for the defendant as an attorney at law of the reasonable value of $100, no part of which has been paid.

The defendant filed an answer denying each and every allegation thereof and denying that said alleged services were worth any sum whatever to her. The cause was tried before the court and jury. Evidence was introduced by plaintiff and several witnesses to the effect that the services were performed as alleged and were reasonably worth from $100 to $250; that while the case in which the services were rendered by the attorney was decided adversely to Miss Eobinson by the trial court, on appeal to this court she won the case upon the question presented and the record made by the plaintiff as her attorney. In opposition to this evidence defendant testified as follows:

“I admit that he rendered me services of one hundred dollars. On the other hand I claim that really he owes me damages for not having this receiver dismissed.”

At the close of the ease the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

We have carefully read all the testimony and find none that disputes or refutes the evidence of plaintiff so as to raise any issue to be submitted to the jury. The answer consists of a general denial. There is no counterclaim pleaded; there is no dispute in the testimony as to the material facts; and there can reasonably be no difference of opinion as to the inferences and conclusions deducible from the evidence so as to require the jury to pass upon the same. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. Eehearing Denied.