Court Opinion

ID: 9810109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:40:00.440117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:23.521471
License: Public Domain

Clark, O. J.,
dissenting: The defendant, by letter, contracted with the plaintiff as follows: “I will reduce the claim to judgment for $100 and a deposit of $10 with Thomas L. Covington, clerk of our Superior Court, to cover court costs advanced to get service of summons.” The plaintiff accepted the terms, sent the note and deposit fee; the action was brought and judgment obtained without contest. Thereafter the defendant wrote the plaintiff, “I will have a transcript of this judgment docketed in Scotland County where they own some land. I don’t think this is absolutely necessary, but I don’t care to take any risk with an amount as large as this. I will be glad to have your check for $100.” This was his bill, as per contract.
The check for $100 was promptly sent. On 17 April, 1913, the defendant acknowledged receipt of the $100 and wrote that he had docketed the transcript in Scotland “in order that every precaution might betaken to enforce this judgment in case the same was not paid according to agreement. I think we will get the money without having to issue execution.” The defendant testifies: “The money was paid into the clerk’s office here. I receipted the clerk here for the money on 13 June, 1913. . . . After writing the letter of 12 April the only service I rendered wms to have the judgment docketed — that is, a transcript of the judgment sent to Scotland County.” The following question was asked the defendant: “What other letter or act, if anything, did you do, except to send a transcript to Scotland County of the judgment taken in Richmond County, and also receipt the clerk of the court here for the money? A. I think that is all, and for that service I charged the additional fee of $350. For issuing the summons, filing the complaint, and obtaining judgment and having it docketed here in this court my charge was $100.”
*347It will thus be seen from the defendant’s evidence and his correspondence that he agreed to reduce the claim to judgment for $100. This was done and his fee was paid. 'The docketing of the judgment was done by the clerk as required by law, Eev., 573, and sending it to Scotland County, which was done by the clerk, at the instance of the defendant, was a very proper act to secure the lien. This involved no labor or legal knowledge. At any rate, if it was not within the contract of the parties, which was ended, it was a generous but gratuitous act for which he was not entitled to charge without the consent of the plaintiff. He wrote the plaintiff he did not think it necessary. If the defendant thought he should have been paid for doing this he should have submitted the matter to his client. No labor had been done, yet the defendant deducted $350 from plaintiff’s money, without his consent, for this unnecessary act, as he wrote plaintiff, of having the transcript sent to Scotland County.
Upon the evidence the judge should have directed the verdict for the plaintiff. The courts are for the administration of justice. Lawyers are very necessary in the dispatch of public business and entitled to just compensation, but the courts are not operated for the purpose of rendering them compensation. The main object is to serve the public. It is of the .utmost importance that clients shall feel that in the courts they will not be put to any disadvantage in dealing with counsel.
There is no doubt that the defendant thought that the plaintiff should pay him $350 because the money was collected and his agreement was merely to reduce the claim to judgment. But on his own evidence the defendant had nothing to do with the collection, for it was paid into office without any action on his part and without any request by the plaintiff that he should take any action. There was no contract, express or implied, for which he was entitled to take $350 out of the money in the clerk’s office, which had been paid in as the property of the plaintiff.
There was nothing done at the request of the plaintiff except what was paid for under the contract by the check for $100. .When the defendant wrote the plaintiff that he thought the act of sending the transcript to'Scotland County was unnecessary, it was in substance a statement that he was not doing an act requiring payment. The plaintiff could not have understood that he would be charged $350 for this. There is nothing to be submitted to the jury, for there was no express contract and none implied. If the defendant should have compensation for this it was a gratuitous act for which his recourse is on the sense of justice on the part of the plaintiff.