| Show A AN AND D THEIR Not Competent for Lawyers to Agree to Pa Adv ce F es esA Al A I I Court II iii of vs n Strolls and Rogers The Tue Supreme court handed down nn an opinion the onee ot of Thomas Nelson ln Ip appellant lant vs David and Lindsay R it Rogers formerly law part nus In Olden Ogden the judgment ot of the Second nl distrIct court wurt leno IL J Judg Judge This sa an aton action brought to recover on the Hi awn ot of third ot at o of 1 s certain enat which was wall du dUe hint him from this the unde under the terms ot of ofa n a written contract The alleged aUge that Charle Charles CharlesA A Nelson brother If of while traveling a train of the Southern uther was wa kie killed 11 appellant was appointed admInistrator ot of hil his al brothers estates and brought action against the railroad company for data dam damI arising through negligence on the I ages Irl part ot of the laUr servants The law ot of Euna Rogers Hoger was employed to prosecute the suit for or thur ser ices they agreed to ac accept pt ot of whatever vas recovered cov On Wil I r bet r 2 ml 1891 q 4 wrItten contract WaS 8 made lIeten between the parties wh rb It was S Sacre agreed between as tol acre We the undersigned ned agree to give Thomas eison or 01 one ot of any noy amounts amount which may lay bl olete collected diner on or I In Inthe the cOe case of Alfred ro I II Nelson a ms admin administrator of the estate Ule ot of Chants A ltd Nel sun deceased VS the Southern lun company deas itt In consideration of sid said Thea Nelson furnishing witnesses necessary to prosecute mi said case Ose SANS EANS ROGERS The he cue case was tried thre three tm times the thelast last resulting tn I a judgment for or plain plaintiff tiff for tor or Of this mount amount toe at attore attorneys tore received PlaintIff claimed ot of that sum under t the be contract 0 alleging that he hod per formed armed al all the by mOle money and time Sn in prOcuring the at ot of the nt at atthe the trial Defendants Interposed I a demurrer to the complaint on the grunda grounds that that I It did not state acts to tute a cause ot of action Judge sustained 1 the and dismissed I the action thereupon h tle tie plaintiff prosecuted this In support of the demurrer counsel counselor contended that the tor or the defendants contract between the parties was and tha that url tiffs complaint the ehe defendants defendant and prose cUi th The t Oi as stat stated was made In Debr December and the tho Supreme curt court holds that the common law was In force In State ut that time rendering it I cm compe competent e tent tont for tor nn an attorney to agree upon comp compensation ns ton Payable I by J per r e or otherwise out ot of the iu ot of the litigation The case 1 ot of Cro Croco vs S the Oregon Orgon Short Line railroad Ol company any Is to Lu by the court which held to the rule of at law with this distinction But I It Is nol no cm corn the attorney In consideration thereof to agree to pay the te fees ant and costs at or of suit py ther thereafter to le be The court finds that the contract re to wal was lega illegal coming within the rule prohibiting ar and holds that tle the demurrer to the complaint was lS prope su sue mined The Thc opinion wa was per curium |
