Court Opinion

ID: 6661911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:02:48.512348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:12.337236
License: Public Domain

*425The following opinion on motion for rehearing was filed September 20, 1915. Rehearing denied.
Barnes, J.
The appellant has filed a motion for rehearing, and contends that the opinion overlooks the fact that plaintiff unqualifiedly admitted that he had quit the service of the defendant. A re-examination of the record shows that the plaintiff testified that, when defendant paid him the fee agreed upon, he was still ready and willing to perform the services. He said: “When he pays me my fee, I am ready to serve him.”
It is next contended' that our opinion in this case is in direct conflict with the rule announced in Shevalier v. Doyle, 88 Neb. 560. Appellant insists that the rule in that case should be adhered to; that a different rule should not be announced without expressly overruling that case. In Shevalier v. Doyle, the contract of employment was terminated; Doyle had accepted his discharge; and, in the suit brought by Shevalier to cancel the mortgage given .to secure Doyle’s fee, the reasonable value of the service was alleged and the attorney was allowed to recover the same. In the case at bar the contract had not been abrogated. The defendant simply neglected and refused to pay plaintiff the fee agreed upon by him. In this case plaintiff sued to recover the compensation agreed upon. He manifested his willingness to perform the services if defendant would pay him his fee. The testimony shows that the defendant employed another attorney and ignored plaintiff. The cases are easily distinguishable, and the motion for a rehearing is
Overruled.
Hamer, J., not sitting.