Case Name: HENRY F. WINGERT et al. vs. CLARENCE K. BOWIE
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1925-02-26
Citations: 147 Md. 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY F. WINGERT et al. vs. CLARENCE K. BOWIE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 610–613

Head Matter:
HENRY F. WINGERT et al. vs. CLARENCE K. BOWIE.
Attorney and Client — Action for Compensation — Evidence— Qualification of Expert.
In an action by an attorney for services rendered, a bill of complaint filed in another suit was admissible, when plaintiff’s services grew out of such suit and his advice was given in reference thereto. p. 612
The qualification of a witness as an expert is largely within the discretion of the trial court, subject to review. p. 613
The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the great majority of lawyers are called npon constantly for advice in reference to business and financial matters, especially those who have been counsel for corporations. p. 613
A lawyer whose practice included a great deal of corporation work and who had had experience in financing corporations and selling corporate stocks, held properly allowed to testify as to the value of services rendered by an attorney in selling a controlling interest in the stock of a hank. p. 613
Decided February 26th, 1925.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County (Fousythe, J.).
Action by Clarence K. Bowie against Henry E. Wingert iand others. Prom a judgment for plainltiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before Bokd, O. J., Pattisoit, ITketek, AracTKS, and Digges, JJ.
Jno. F. Wagaenan, with whom was Harper Ballentine on the brief, for the appellants.
Walter L. Clarke, with whom was Guy W. Steele on the brief, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Adkins, J.,
delivered, the opinion of the Oounb.
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of -appellee' who sued 'appiellants for professional servicies.
Appellee, a prominent member of the bar of Baltimore City, wiaa -called upon by .appellants for advicsa in reference to a bill of complaint which had been filed in the United States District Court in Baltimore by the 'Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, against the First Uational Bank of Hagerstown and appellants and others, directors -of said bank, asking fo-r a forfeiture of the charter and the appointment of .a temporary receiver pending the hearing on the bill. A temporary receiver was appointed.
Appellants owned a majority of the shares of stock of said bank and two of them were respectively president and vicei-prasddent of 'the b-ank. The bill charglad a number of violations of the banking 'and federal reserve laws. It appears from the evidence that appellants admitted to appellee that mo'st of the -charges) were true and he -advised them that in such circumstances there was northing toi he gained by asking for the discharge of the receiver if the hank was to he run under the same management. But appellee, after a conference with the judge of said court and the district attorney, was able to' assure -appellants that if they would sell their stock to responsible people iso that a new and satisfactory management! could be installed, the receiver would be discharged. To- this they agreed, and appellee was instructed1 to find a purchaser for the stock of appellants at a price that would enable them to pay -their indebtedness. It appears that appellee was well qualified to perform this service by reason of bis wide acquaintance, with financial interests. He obtained an offer from Hamblefbon & doompany, bankers, which he submitted to appállantsi, but which they did not immediately ag!r-ea to> accept. Oh the oomtaatry they indicated .that they were not disposed! to do 'anything in the matter at that time, anjd informed appellee that 'his services would not be required -the nest day -and that he could go to Hew York, where he had an appoinltraeulti for -that day. In his absence the offer made by Hamblettom & Company, through appellee, was accepted! by appellants substantially as originally made, and the stock sold for $160,000, but they refused to pay appellee for his services. Whereupon the suit was brought, .and judgment recovered for $5,000.
There are four bills of exception, all to the rulings of the trial court on evidence. Only the first and third were pressed in the brief and oral argument of appellants, so it will not be necessary to consider the other two.
The first exception was to the adtmiission in evidence of the bill of complaint filed in the federal court. This wais the only pleading, as the matter was settled before an answer was filed.
The complaint of appellants is that the bill of complaint could in no- way reflect upon the amount of work performed in preparing pleading!© by plaintiff which were never prepared, nor-upon the value ,and nature of services in the trial of a case which was never tried; that the inevitable effect of admitting said bill of complaint was to prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendants and to virtually impeach their testimony. But on examination of the bill We do not find that the nature of the charges wlere such as to reflect upon the veracity or morals of the defendants or to discredit them as witnesses. However that may be, we know of no theory on which it could have been excluded as evidence in a case where the services -sued for grew out of, and the advice given had reference to; the .suit instituted by the filing of that papier. Ho authority is cited by appellants, and wie know of none, to support such a contention. 6 C. J. pages 760, 761. The ruling of the court was correct.
The third exception was to permitting Mr. Charles F. Harley, another prominent member of the bar', to give his opinion as an expert of .the value of plaintiff's services; based on a hypothetical question. The ground of the objection was lack of qualification on the part ;of the witness. The question embraces facts testified to (a) as to purely legal services; (b) as to services in procuring a purchaser for the stock. It is freely admitted that, as to the first, Mr. ITarley was abundantly qualified to give an opinion,. The laok of quaRfioatum is supposed to .he as to the second. There is no suggestion that the question itself is defective either in form or substance.
The qualification of a witness is largely within the discretion of the trial court, subject,'of course, to review. Refrigerating Co. v. Kremer, 109 Md. at 370. Wei find no such clear mistake, or abuse of discretion, as to require our inters position.
Tire Oourt will take judicial notice of the fact that the great majority of lawyers are called upon constantly for advice, in reference to business and financial matters, especially those who have been counsel for corporations. Mr. Harley testified that ha had been a busy lawyer for thirty years; that his practice included a great deal of corporation work; that he had had siuch experience in financing corporations and the selling of stocks as was usrral in a busy office like his. The defendants declined to test his qualification by cross-examination. The weight of his testimony was for the jury to determine.
W© find no error in the ruling of the court on this exception.
Judgment affm'med, with, costs to appellee.