Court Opinion

ID: 8070917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 11:26:16.052481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:38:14.769827
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.
It is not easy to see upon what theory the justice gave judgment in favor of defendant.. The defendant expressly agreed, in writing, to pay plaintiff one-half of the amount the latter might save from the claim then made against defendant’s property. The claim made amounted to $1,113.50. The plaintiff at Once addressed himself to the receivers of the corporation malting the claim, insisting that it was excessive, as it undoubtedly was. Ultimately, after the decision in a similar case by one of the Appellate Divisions of this state, the receivers acceded, in the main, to plaintiff’s contention, and the claim was settled at a considerable reduction. It cannot -be said that plaintiff did nothing to earn his fee, for he certainly conducted the negotiations between defendant and the receivers. Possibly the defendant might have obtained as large a reduction if he had undertaken the negotiations himself, but even that is not certain. At all events,' he *505employed the plaintiff to obtain a reduction, and it was obtained. We are unable to accede to the argument of defendant’s counsel to the effect that a lawyer can only earn a fee by bringing a suit. To obtain a favorable settlement of a controversy without suit is certainly a legitimate professional service.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.