49 Wn.2d 897, MAYBELLE L. Fox, Appellant, v. MERRITT E. Fox, Appellant, NEAL CLARK, Respondent
[No. 33715. Department Two. Supreme Court March 7, 1957.]
MAYBELLE L. Fox, Appellant, v. MERRITT E. Fox, Appellant,
NEAL CLARK, Respondent.1
[1] APPEAL AND ERROR - REVIEW - FINDINGS. The findings of a trial court, made on conflicting testimony, will not be disturbed unless the supreme court can say, as a matter of law, that the evidence preponderates against them.
[2] ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - FEES - PREMATURE TERMINATION OF RELATION - VALUE OF SERVICES. In a proceeding to recover a fee paid to an attorney to bring a divorce action during the pendency of which the parties became reconciled, the trial court did not err in finding that the attorney was entitled to retain the full fee, where it appears that he had procured the execution of the property settlement agreement and performed the services contemplated by the contract of employment, except for procuring the decree of divorce.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, No. 484859, Shorett, J., entered January 20, 1956, upon findings in a divorce action, fixing the value of an attorney's services. Affirmed.
Claire Wheeler Seltzer, for appellants.
A. C. Long and Neal Clark, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
Mrs. Maybelle L. Fox retained attorney Neal Clark to bring a divorce action against her husband Merritt E. Fox. On August 19, 1955, she entered into a written contract of employment with him, in which she agreed to pay five hundred dollars for his services. On September 3, 1955, Mr. and Mrs. Fox were reconciled. Shortly thereafter, they called upon Clark and demanded the immediate return of four hundred dollars. This being refused, they petitioned, in the pending divorce action, for the return of $433.50.
The petitioners alleged that Clark had solicited the employment, and alleged misconduct on his part. This was denied by Clark, who asserted that he had procured the execution of a property settlement between the parties and had
1 Reported in 307 P. (2d) 1062.
[2] See 3 A. L. R. 1109; 5 Am. Jur. 365.
898 CURRIE v. UNION OIL CO. [49 Wn. (2d)
performed the services contemplated by the contract of employment, except only the procuring of the decree of divorce.
At the trial, the testimony was in sharp conflict. The trial court made findings of fact that supported Clark's position.
[1, 2] The cause presents questions of fact only. Findings of a trial court made on conflicting testimony will not be disturbed unless we can say, as a matter of law, that the evidence preponderates against them. Skov v, MacKenzie-Richardson, Inc., 48 Wn. (2d) 710, 296 P. (2d) 521. The findings of the trial court are supported by the record.
The judgment is affirmed.