Case Name: REDICK vs. ORR
Court: Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1817-04
Citations: 1 Tapp. Rep. 158
Docket Number: 
Parties: REDICK vs. ORR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the Courts of common pleas, in the Fifth circuit of the state of Ohio [1816-1819] (Tappan)
Volume: 1
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
REDICK vs. ORR.
“ Services as counsel,” is not a sufficient consideration to support an assumpsit.
A declaration which states the cause of action subsequent to the date of the writ, is bad on demurrer.
Assumpsit.
The declaration was as follows:
“ Thomas Orr was attached to answer unto, David Redick, in a plea of trespass on the case, &e. for that whereas the said Thomas Orr, on the first day of November, in the year 1816, became indebted to the said David, in the just and full sum of four dollars, lawful money of the United States, for services rendered by the said David to the said Thomas as his counsel, &c. at the special instance and request of the said Thomas. In consideration thereof, the said Thomas afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at &c. undertook,” &c.
Special demurrer and joinder.
Redick, for himself.
Wright, for the defendant.

Opinion:
President.
Several causes of demurrer are assigned, which it will be unnecessary to notice particularly, as we shall sustain the demurrer on two grounds:
First. There is no sufficient consideration set forth to support this action. The consideration is, "for services rendered by the said David Rediclr to the said Thomas Orr, as his counsel," &c. Unless we establish the position, that advice is, in all cases and from all persons, when asked, a good and valuable consideration, upon which the law will imply a promise to pay money, this consideration cannot be deemed sufficient. The plaintiff places his demand on this broad ground; and the question, whether a lawyer can recover in assumpsit, for professional advice, cannot arise upon this declaration. Counsel given, at the request of another, is not surely of course good and valuable: it is a gratuity, which, indeed, is very seldom of much use to the donee, and still more seldom attended with any loss or damage to the donor. The law will not imply an assumpsit on such slight grounds.
Second. This suit was commenced on the 23d October 1816, and the cause of action is said to have arisen on the 1st Nov. 1816. On this ground, also, the declaration is bad. Judgment for the defendant.