Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-04-05
That $4,000 Attorneys Fee Again.

In the year 1876 the city of Sacramento
was sued by John Hoagland and six others
for damages alleged to have been occaSioned
by the STRENGTHENING of the channel of the
American river, just north of the city. The
alleged amount of damages aggregated SIS.
900. with interest These claims were all
barred by the statute of Limitations. but in
1876 the Legislature by its Act revived the
claims and authorized suit To be instituted.
Creed Raymond was employed by the city
to defend the suits. Afterwards Curtis &
Clunie were employed rs assistant counsel,
and each received AT the time $500 advance.
Curtis a Cluuie claim that the agreement
was that in case the suits were won. then
they were 70 have a liberal fee. The suits
We're argued upon demurrer, and the de
murrer was sustained. which order was at-
forwards affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Creed Raymond was paid $500 additional
for his services. and Curtis Il Clunie de
manded $4,000. On December p, 1877,
the Trustees rejected the claim. Then Cur
It's & Clunie and the city, by Jabez Turner.
Mayor. entered into an agreement of arhi
tratiOn. Robert Hamilton and Ham G..
Harrison were appointed arbitratorS. They
held a meeting AT which. it was claimed,
the city was not represented. These arbi
traitors could not agree, So Fred. Cox
was appointed by the two arbitrator
a. the third arbitrator. The city never had
any hearing before the third arbitrator.
These then met and made an award, allow
ing Curtis IL Clunie 5000. The city re-
fused. under advice of the City Attorney
and A. F. Catlin. to pay the award. Suit
was commenced by Curtis IL Clunie
against the city for 5000 upon the award.
The case was tried before the late Judge
Clark Freeman 4 Bates appearing for plain
till. and w. A. Anderson and A. p. Catlm
for the defense. Judgment was rendered
in favor of the defendants. Appeal was
taken to the Supreme Court, and Judgment
affirmed by that Court. Pending this APP
peal, Curtis & Clunie filed another COM
plant on July 2S, 1882, alleging indebted
ness for $4,000 for services, ignoring the
arbitrator award. The defense interpOSed
a demurrer which was overruled. Answer
was then filed pleading the statute of limi-
tation; also, pleading in bar the former
Judgment in the award case; also Il general
denial Yesterday this case was called for
trial before Judge Mcfarland, in Depart
ment Two of the Superior Court, Freeman
& Bates and Curtis Il Clunie for plaintiff,
and a p. Catlin and W. A. Anderson for
defense. 1t is claimed by plaintiff that the
agreement of submission made July % 1882
took the case without the statute of limita-
tons. 1t is claimed by the defense that the
question involved in the Hoagland cases was
one that had already been settled by the
Courts and law-writers, and that the Act of
the Legislature authorizing the suits was
clearly unconstitutional, and the principle
had been fully decided by the Courts; that
no great amount of labor had been per
formed and that the alleged damages were
greatly exaggerated; also that the action
was barred by limitation at the date of the
commencement of the suit; also that the
former Judgment III the award case was
bar; also that the Board OF Trustees had
no authority to make the agreement of
July %, 1882, which plaintiffs claim took
the case without the statute OF limitations.
The plaintiffs contend that their services
were reasonably worth $4,000, and that
the agreement was that they should have a
liberal fee in case of success. A
large number of attorneys were sworn
for plaintiffs. and each in his testimony
upon the hypothetical questions PROFOUND
ed by counsel for plaintiff, stated that under
that state of facts. and the fees being con-
tipgent. that $4,000 would be a reasonable
fee. When the Act of March II, 1876.
authorizing Hoagland and Others to sue the
citv, was passed Creed Raymond was in
the Senate and T. ]. ClJmie was in the
Assembly This fact was urged by one of
the Trustees as a reason why they should
be employed to defend the city from the
effects of she Act After hearing nearly
all the EVIDENCE proposed 10 be introduced,
the CouTt yesterday decided to cOntinu e
the further hearing until next TuesdA Az,
nj 10 A NJ.