Beatty v. Larzelere

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Beatty v. Larzelere, 194 Pa. 605 (Pa. 1900)
45 A. 653; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 449
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mestrezat

Beatty v. Larzelere

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The contest in the court below turned upon the question whether a new parol contract was made between the parties after the written contract was made, and its execution had been proceeded with to a certain stage. The learned court below fairly and correctly submitted that question to the jury with appropriate instructions, and the juiy found in favor of the defendant. There was a sufficiency of testimony to warrant the submission of the question to the jury, and to sustain their verdict. There is no legal difficulty in the way to disable the parties from making such an agreement, and the agreement itself, if and when, subsequently made, and upon the consideration which moved the parties to enter into it, does not in the least infringe upon the rule which prohibits the giving of parol proof to alter or contradict the terms of a written instrument. The assignments of error are without merit and are dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
James Beatty v. Nicholas H. Larzelere
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Attorney and client — Contract—Compensation—Parol evidence. Where a written agreement has been entered into between an attorney and his client, fixing the former’s rate of compensation in litigation about to be begun, and the terms of this contract are fully understood by the client, the parties may subsequently, alter a verdict has been obtained, enter into a new parol agreement, by which the attorney is to have all above a certain amount, if the verdict is maintained, and no compensation at all if it is less than the specified amount, and more than a certain other amount, and the attorney further obligates himself to render services that did not fall within the terms of his original contract.