Case Name: Duffy and another, Appellants, vs. Hinkley and others, Respondents
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1904-02-02
Citations: 120 Wis. 492
Docket Number: 
Parties: Duffy and another, Appellants, vs. Hinkley and others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
Duffy and another, Appellants, vs. Hinkley and others, Respondents.
January 14
February 2, 1904.
'Appeal and error: Trial by court: Findings when disturbed.
Findings of the trial court, unless against the clear preponderance of the evidence, will not he disturbed.
Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Dodge ■county: J. A. BaeNEy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action for compensation for professional services rendered in an action by Charles 0. Grafton against tbe defendants. 'The amount claimed is $453.90. L. D. Hinkley and M. J. Althouse answered separately, denying that plaintiffs were employed by them or in their behalf in such action, but admitting that they were employed by tbe other defendants and alleging payment for tbe services rendered. Such other -defendants answered separately, admitting tbe employment of plaintiffs as attorneys in two actions — tbe agreed compensation in tbe first being $200", and no agreement being made on tbe subject in tbe last one — and that plaintiffs rendered - services in both such actions; and alleging that they bad re-
ceived tbeir disbursements and $400 besides, in all $728, tbe $400 being in excess of tlie ¡reasonable value of services rendered in tbe second action, and tbe agreed price for services in tbe first. Tbe cause was tried by tbe court, and resulted in findings material to tbis appeal to tbis effect: Plaintiffs were employed as attorneys in tbe case mentioned in tbe-complaint and as therein mentioned. *Tbey performed services pursuant to sucb employment in tbe circuit court for-Pond du Eac county, and in tbe supreme court, necessarily disbursing for defendants, in tbe course of tbe litigation, $86.60. Tbe trial in tbe circuit court lasted a day and a balf. Tbe reasonable value of tbe services rendered, witb tbe disbursements, is $386.60. Defendants bave paid $352.70, leaving a balance due plaintiffs of $33.90, wbicb tbey are entitled to recover.
Judgment was rendered accordingly.
Eor tbe appellants there was a brief by J. Q. Hardgrove,. and oral argument by J. H. McGrory.
Eor tbe respondents tbe cause was submitted on tbe brief' of O. II. Hooker.

Opinion:
Maeshall, J.
It does not seem advisable to discuss tbe evidence in tbis case. Tbe questions raised all relate to whether tbe findings are warranted by tbe evidence. The-record has been carefully examined. We are unable to perceive that sucb findings are against tbe clear .preponderance of tbe evidence, and therefore, by familiar rules, tbe judgment must be affirmed.
By the Gourt. — So ordered.