Case Name: DOLPH v. SPECKART
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1919-04-08
Citations: 94 Or. 550
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOLPH v. SPECKART.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Johns and Bennett, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 550–567

Head Matter:
Motion, to dismiss appeal submitted February 28,
overruled April 8,
argued on the merits November 12, 1919, affirmed January 6, 1920.
DOLPH v. SPECKART.
(179 Pac. 657; 186 Pac. 32).
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Description of Judgment— Date — Misleading Respondent.
1. Where a notice shows that defendant appeals from a judgment rendered June 28th, and the transcript discloses a judgment entered July 1st, the misdescription was not siich as to mislead plaintiff, and defendant could assume that the judgment was rendered on the date of the verdiet, as provided by Section 201, Ii. O. X.., and plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby, where he appeared several times to object to the sufficiency of the sureties upon the undertaking.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Description of Judgment— Inaccuracy in Amount — Further Appearances of Appellee.
2. Where a notice of appeal states that the judgment was for $128, when it was for $128.50, the inaccuracy could not have misled respondent, particularly where his appearances thereafter in the Circuit Court indicated that he was not uncertain as to the judgment appealed from.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Negligence.
3. Although a notice of appeal describes the judgment as of an erroneous date, where the affidavit of appellant’s .counsel shows that the date given in the notice was the same as that in the copy of the proposed judgment served upon Mm by respondent’s counsel, he is thereby relieved from any imputation of carelessness in preparation of notice.
Appeal and Error — Appeal Statutes — Liberal Construction.
4. Substantial compliance with the appeal statutes is all that ought to be -required to the end that no one shall be deprived of his right to be heard by reason of any mere technicality arising from strained construction.
ON THE MERITS.
Evidence — Value may be Proved by Showing Amount Realized at Sales.
5. When it becomes necessary to ascertain the value of articles for which there is no open market, evidence of price realized at sales of such, articles, held under conditions calculated to secure adequate returns, is admissible, provided that the time of sale is not too remote to raise a logical inference.
Evidence — Inadmissible When in Conflict With Written Stipulation.
6. In an action by an attorney to recover compensation by reason of a breach of a percentage contract, defendant having employed other counsel, who brought action, and stipulations were entered into between the client and opponent, wherein it was agreed that the client was entitled to at least $50,000, evidence that the client’s opponent contended that the client was not entitled to the amount stipulated was properly excluded, being in direct conflict with the written stipulation.
Stipulations — Construction of Stipulation That Payment to Plaintiff Should be Without Prejudice to Rights.
7. A clause, “said payment to be without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties to this suit,” in a stipulation in an action to recover part of the estate of a deceased person wherein it was agreed that plaintiff was entitled to at least $30,000, wMek was given her, held to refer to litigation as to the balance of the fund, and not to the amount paid plaintiff.
Attorney and Client — Amount of Damages for Breach of Contract of Employment Question for Jury.
8. In an action by an attorney for breach of a contract of employment under which his compensation was to be a certain percentage of the amount recovered, defendant having employed other counsel, who brought an action, wherein it was stipulated that defendant was at least entitled to certain stock which was deposited in the registry of the court, whether defendant accepted such stoek as her property so as to entitle plaintiff to compensation held for the jury, although the stock remained in the registry of the court.
Attorney and Client — Breach of Contract by Client — Amount of Compensation.
9. Where a client breached a contract under which he employed an attorney to obtain or -recover part of the estate of a decedent claimed by the client, and employed other counsel, who brought an action wherein it was stipulated that the client was at least entitled to certain corporate stock, which was then given to the elient, damages for breach of the contract with the attorney should be based on the value of the corporate stock at the time it was issued or given to the elient.
Contracts — Construction to Give Effect to Entire Contract.
10. Written contracts should be construed from the standpoint o£ the parties when they were contracting, and be so interpreted as to give effect to all the provisions, if possible.
Attorney and Client — Measure of Damages for Breach of Contract of Employment.
11. Where one employs an attorney and makes an express valid contract, stipulating for the compensation which the attorney is to receive for his services, such contract is, generally speaking, conclusive as to the amount of such compensation.
Attorney and Client — Right of Client to Terminate Relationship cannot Defeat Claim for Compensation.
12. While a elient may terminate the relationship between himself and his attorney, where an attorney is prematurely discharged or is otherwise wrongfully prevented from performing the professional duties for which he was employed without fault on his part, •he is entitled to compensation, even though the arrangement was for a contingent fee, provided the contingency has happened.
Attorney and Client — Measure of Damages for Breach of Contract of Employment.
13. A client, by wrongfully preventing the performance of acts which entitle an attorney to specific compensation under a contract, becomes liable in damages in such amount.
Trial — Construction of Stipulations and Orders in Other Suit Question for Court.
14. In an action by an attorney for damages for breach of a contract of employment under whie-h he was to receive as compensation a certain percentage of the amount recovered, the client, having employed other counsel, who brought action in the federal court, wherein certain stipulations were entered into concerning the amount due the client, the construction of orders entered in the federal court and stipulations therein was for the court.
Appeal and Error — Findings Supported by Evidence not Disturbed.
15. Under the Constitution, where there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, the Supreme Court is precluded from disturbing the same.
From Multnomah.: Robert Tucker, Judge.
In Bane.
On motion to dismiss appeal.
Overruled.
Mr. Henry J. Bigger, for the motion.
Mr. E. E. Heckbert, contrcu.

Opinion:
McBRIDE, C. J.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, on the ground that the notice of appeal does not describe with sufficient certainty the judgment appealed from.
The notice of appeal is in the usual form and states that the defendant appeals from a judgment against her rendered on June 28, 1916, for the sum of $128; the further sum of $2,509.14, and the sum of-dollars costs. The transcript discloses a judgment for the sum of $128.50, the further sum of $2,509.14, and $57.05 costs, entered on July 1, 1916, and dated June 29, 1916. The notice of appeal was served August 27, 1918, and an undertaking on appeal was served and filed September 6,1918, which undertaking followed the notice in the description of the judgment. On September 10, 1918, the plaintiff filed exceptions to the undertaking, and on September 20th, the exceptions were heard and defendant was required to give a new undertaking, which undertaking was actually filed on September 20, 1918, which also followed the notice of appeal. This undertaking was excepted to, and thereupon on September 25, 1918, defendant filed an undertaking on appeal and for a supersedeas which was conditioned to satisfy the judgment that should be rendered on appeal. The description of the judgment in this undertaking followed the previous undertaking and recited1 that the judgment was rendered on June 28, 1918. No exception being filed, the undertaking was approved.
We do not think the misdescription of the judgment was such as to have misled the plaintiff. The verdict was rendered on June 28th, and the judgment should have been rendered on that day: Section 201, L. O. L.
The defendant, in taking her appeal, naturally assumed, and had a right to assume, that plaintiff had complied with the law, and should not be prejudiced by the fact that plaintiff had waited until a later date to enter the judgment, if in fact it was entered and in force at the date of taking the appeal. As before recited, the plaintiff appeared several times in the Circuit Court to object to the sufficiency of the sureties upon the undertaking, thereby recognizing the fact that he was informed of and knew the judgment defendant was attempting to appeal from, and, indeed, considering the fact that the judgment was upon two causes of action, and for separate amounts in each, and that the verdict was rendered upon the twenty-eighth day of June, and the judgment due for entry on that day, he could not as a matter of law have been misled. <
As to the misdescription of the amount of the judgment, it may be repeated that the verdict was upon two causes of action. Upon the first, the jury awarded plaintiff $128.50; upon the second $2,509.14. In the notice of appeal the amounts are stated at $128 and $2,509.14. It is needless to say that the notice is technically inaccurate in respect to the judgment rendered upon the first cause of action, but we are of the opinion that the inaccuracy is not of such a character as to have misled anyone, and the record of plaintiff's various appearances in the Circuit Court thereafter indicates that he was not uncertain as to what judgment defendant was appealing from.
In justice to the attorney for the defendant it is not improper to state that it appears from his affi davit, which is not contradicted, that before the entry of- the judgment, as it now appears of record, the attorney for the plaintiff served upon him a copy of the judgment which plaintiff proposed to ask the court to enter, and that in this copy the proposed judgment is described and dated exactly as recited in the notice of appeal. While we do not pass upon the efficacy of such an affidavit, as tending to explain a defective notice, it at least relieves counsel for defendant from any imputation of carelessness in preparing his notice.
This court has always been liberal in its construction of our appeal statutes, to the end that no one shall be deprived of his right to be heard here, by reason of any mere technicality arising from a strained construction of the statutes, substantial compliance with which is all that ought to be required. The motion to dismiss is overruled.
Counsel for defendant has interposed a counter-motion for leave to file an amended undertaking, complying with the description of the judgment as actually entered, and this motion is allowed.
Motion to Dismiss Overruled.
Motion to Amend Undertaking Allowed.