Court Opinion

ID: 9851900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:21:10.900398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:19.034369
License: Public Domain

WOOD, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment.
There is at least an implication in a statement contained in the opinion of Mr. Justice McComb to the effect that the facts shown in Mr. Betty’s testimony would not support an action against his client for the recovery of a fee in ease of his success in recovering a judgment. There is no indication that Mr. Betty’s services are being rendered gratuitously.  Where legal services are actually performed with the knowledge and consent of the other party and not as a gratuity, a promise will be implied to pay for the benefits received. (Young v. Bruere, 78 Cal. App. 127 [248 Pac. 301]; Buck v. City of Eureka, 124 Cal. 61 [56 Pac. 612].)
I think it should be made to appear that Judge Schmidt did not act solely upon the conversation with Mr. Betty. Under date of August 28, 1937, a contract in writing was executed by Jeanette P. Emerson and Marion P. Betty whereby it was provided that Mr. Betty would receive “an amount equal to fifty per cent of any amount which may be collected ... in the event nothing is collected . . . my attorney shall receive nothing for his services”. Under date of November 8, 1937, the parties to this instrument executed another instrument whereby it was provided that the contract of August 28, 1937, be “cancelled, abrogated and agreed to be void and of no force and effect”. The revocation of November 8, 1937, was executed before a notary public but the contract of August 28, 1937, was not notarized.
Grail, P. J., concurred.