King v. Somerset Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
King v. Somerset Telephone Co., 265 Pa. 390 (Pa. 1919)
109 A. 926; 1919 Pa. LEXIS 563
Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Simpson, Stewart, Walling

King v. Somerset Telephone Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The judgment recovered below by the use-plaintiff was for professional services rendered to the defendant by the legal plaintiff. That he had been employed as one of its counsel was not denied, and the sole question for the consideration of the jury was the value of his services. The *391single assignment of error is to the entire charge to the jury, the complaint being that it was inadequate and unfair. It is sufficient to say we have not been convinced that the complaint is well founded and calls for the submission to another jury of the simple question involved in the issue.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Status
Published
Syllabus
Attorney-at-law — Action for compensation for services — Charge —Review. In an action by an attorney-at-law to recover for professional services, a judgment on a verdict in his favor will be sustained, where the employment is not denied, the only question being the value of the services, and the only complaint that the charge of the court as a whole was inadequate and unfair, and the appellate court finds that this complaint is not well founded.