Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-12-29
ATTORNEY FEE
Of $500 HELD TO
Be REASONABLE.
Supreme Court UpholdS DeclS-
ion in Case Where Allow
ance Made to Lawyer IS
Attacked by Litigant'
Is,scl.. o,s,.reH 70 aornna lousHAll

Santa Re. Dec. 2S.-The question OF
whether or not q charge by an at
torney OF $500 as q fees in case IN.
so1vIng approximately $4,000 shoulu
have been allowed by. dhe trial court
was decided By the supreme court TO-
day I'm favor Of the contention OF the
ATTORNEYS I'M the case of Williams CT
ais. appellants, VS.. Dockwiler, ap-
pellee The opinion, which was ue-
ilvered by Chief Justice Roberts, was
as follows:
Appellee filed suit against appel
liant TO foreclose mortgage on GER
tain real estate, given to secure the
payment Of a promissory note for the
sum of $4,000. interest, etc. alleging
in his complaint that appellant had
failed to pay interest and taxes due,
and. that by the terms of said mort
gage deed the whole sum secured
thereby became due and payable.
The mortgage also provided for the
payment OF attorneys fees.
L.. +. Davies was employed by ap-
pellee as attorney to conduct such
foreclosure proceedings and he pre-
pared and filed the complaint. held
frequent conferences with appellee
relative TO suit, made certain other
Interested parties defendants, ana IN
vestigated the records in the record
er's office for the purpose of deter
mining other liens that might exist
against. the real estate In question and
briefed the legal question likely TO
arise on the trial Of the cause. He
also examined certain mortgages and
notes prepared by other attorneys,
representing Williams.
Appellee made no special agree
ment with Davies relative TO his
charge for his services in the case,
except an agreements that Davies
would only charge him st0O in the
event the cause was compromised
and settled on or before February IL,
1914. The case was not settled by that
date, however. but was subsequently
adjusted by Williams paying appellee
1 "a certain amount in cash. and execut-
ling a new note and mortgage for the
balance at an increased rate OF In
terest. but appellants attorney per-
formed no further legal service rela-
tive to said litigation after February
liz. except possibly the examination
and approval OF the new mortgage.
BY the terms of the settlement be-
tween the parties it was agreed that
appellant should be liable to appellee
for such attorneys fees as appellee
should be required to pay his attor-
lney, which was to be subsequently
adjusted with Mr.. Davies. The par
ties were unable to agree upon the
amount which should be paid Mr.. Da-
vies. and this question, upon evidence
heard, was submitted to the district
judge. without jury. The trial court
found that $500 was the amount rea-
sonably owing Mr.. Davies by Mr..
DcclSwiler and entered judgment
against appellant for that amount,
and costs of suit
From this Judgment appeal. is
prosecuted.
Judgment Of the court below al
firmcd.
Syllabus by the Court.
|. Where the question as TO the
amount of recovery by plaintiff as at
torney's fees upon a suit filed to fore
close real estate mortgage, secur-
ing the payment Of promissory note
for approximately $4,000, Is submit
ted to the court, upon conflicting evil
dence, and the court awards the sum
of $500, and the award is sustained
by the evidence, the same will be up
| held on appeal, in the absence of evil
dence showing oppression or collu-
| sion.
.. In cases tried before the court
the erroneous admission of testimony
will afford no ground for reversal
unless it is apparent that the court
considered such testimony in decid-
| ing the case.