Tong v. Orr

Decided February 16, 1909

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1909-02-16

1. Trial.— Interrogatories.- — -Contracts.— Attorney and Client. — A general verdict for plaintiff in an action on the quantum meruit for services rendered as an attorney, is not controlled by answers to interrogatories which fail to show that the contract found therein embraced the particular service sued for. p.682. 2. Attorney and Client. — Contracts.—Abandonment of. — Quantum Meruit. — Evidence.—Where there is evidence tending to show that a client employed an attorney to prosecute a suit to quiet title, the representation being that the defense would be merely formal, and upon a hearing the defendant made a real defense involving seriously contested litigation, the client instructing the attorney to proceed with the case and “fight it to a finish,” and the client paid to the attorney, on account, more than the contract price, a verdict for a still larger sum is supported, the evidence justifying an inference of an abandonment of the contract. Rabb, J., dissenting, pp. 682, 685,693. 3. Attorney and Client.- — Contracts.—An attorney, like other persons, is bound by his contracts, p. 685. 4. Trial. — Question for Jury. — Contracts.—Whether a client contracted with an attorney for the prosecution of a merely formal suit, or for a contested litigation, is a question of fact for the jury. p. 687. 5. Contracts. — Abrogation.—Formalities.—No formality is necessary for the abrogation of an ordinary verbal contract, p. 694.

Relies on Cordes v. Bailey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1909-02-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1980

11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Petition for Rehearing.

Roby, J.

¶22. The case of Cordes v. Bailey (1906), 39 Ind. App. 83, is not in conflict with the decision herein. It was held in that case that the parties were bound by their contract. It was not held that parties competent to make a contract might not, at their pleasure, cancel, *694abandon, modify or change it. It is not necessary to decide whether there is evidence in the record sufficient to sustain a finding that the original contract had not been abandoned. The sole question is whether there is evidence to sustain the finding made by the general verdict, and that being the case, an affirmance follows.

¶35. There is no special formula or set of words which must be used in abrogating or modifying a contract. The question is one of fact, to be determined in the trial court upon the evidence in each case.

¶4The petition for rehearing is overruled.