Case Name: A. J. SIMLER, Appellant, v. Leslie L. CONNER, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-10-12
Citations: 295 F.2d 534
Docket Number: No. 6339
Parties: A. J. SIMLER, Appellant, v. Leslie L. CONNER, Appellee.
Judges: Before BRATTON, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 295
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
A. J. SIMLER, Appellant, v. Leslie L. CONNER, Appellee.
No. 6339.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 12, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1961.
Certiorari Granted Jan. 15, 1962.
See 82 S.Ct. 440.
John B. Ogden, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Jack M. Highley, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
James M. Little and Phil E. Daugherty, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Leslie L. Conner, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
(on reconsideration).
When we originally considered this declaratory judgment action in which determinations of the validity of an attorney's contingent fee contract and of the reasonableness of an attorney's fee in a will-contest case are sought, we held that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on the issues of fact. Simler v. Conner, 10 Cir., 282 F.2d 382. Thereafter the United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case "for reconsideration in the light of Southard v. MacDonald, Okl., 360 P.2d 940." Conner v. Simler, 367 U.S. 486, 81 S.Ct. 1679, 6 L.Ed.2d 1241. In the Southard case the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held:
"Where it is necessary to cancel a contingent fee contract before any other relief prayed for can be granted, and the cancellation of such contract is the basic relief sought, neither party is entitled to a jury trial for the reason that the cancellation is a purely equitable matter." Southard v. MacDonald, Okl., 360 P.2d 940, 941 (syllabus by the court).
Unless the contingent fee contract in this case is held to be invalid the value of the services on a quantum meruit basis does not arise, and Conner is entitled to one-half of any recovery resulting from the legal services rendered in connection with the will contest matter. The basic relief sought is the cancellation of the contract; therefore the action is purely equitable in nature, and should be determined by the court without a jury.
As to the appropriateness of the trial court's summary judgment our views remain as expressed in the former opinion.
Reversed and remanded for trial without a jury.