Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

2. That on the

day of

19 at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

, payment of the same was duly demanded from the defendant by this plaintiff, but the same has not been paid, nor any part thereof.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 640-On builder's contract, with claim for extra work for altera

tions.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges:

day of

19

at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the parties

1. That on the hereto entered into a contract, in writing, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof, whereby the plaintiff agreed to erect a house for the defendant, in consideration whereof the defendant was to pay $ as follows: [State terms

of payment.]

2. That on the

3. That on the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

by mutual consent, as follows: [Set out alterations.]

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

the plaintiff, for a reasonable reward then promised, [here specify the extra work done on each alteration agreed upon, and allege the reasonable value of the same].

4. That in consideration of said alterations the time for completing said building was extended for one month beyond the time fixed by the contract, to wit, to the 19 .

[blocks in formation]

5. That the plaintiff on his part duly performed all the conditions of said contract.

6. That the defendant has not paid the last [two] instalments called for by said contract, nor has he paid the balance due for the extra work aforesaid after deducting the said allowance, amounting in all to $

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 641-By attorneys, for services.

(In Rosenthal v. Ogden, 50 Neb. 218, 220; 69 N. W. 779.) [Title of court and cause.]

That plaintiffs, A. B. and C. D., are partners, engaged in business as attorneys and counselors at law at

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

19, the defendants employed plaintiffs as their attorneys in a matter in controversy between defendants and one

said day of employment until the

day of

day of

; that from

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

19

[ocr errors]

ants, and each of them, counseled with plaintiffs with reference to said controversy; that on the applied to one of the judges of the United States circuit court of appeals for an order of injunction and application for receiver against the People's Mammoth Instalment Company, in which suit the defendants herein were joined as defendants; that at the special instance and request of defendants herein, plaintiffs performed all the professional services in and on behalf of said suit, as attorneys for the said and at Omaha, between the

19, and the

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

day of 19, to wit, [setting out dates];

that said professional services so rendered by plaintiffs were reasonably worth the sum of $

;

that said sum of $

is due for

A. B. and C. D., Petitioners.

said services, and no part thereof has been paid.

Wherefore [etc.].

FORM No. 642-By surviving partner of law firm, to recover conditional and

reasonable fee for legal services.
account.)

(Pleading, also, stated

(In Keegin v. Joyce, 9 Cal. App. 207; 98 Pac. 396.)

[Title of court.]

W. C. Keegin, as surviving part

ner of the firm of Holcomb & Keegin, plaintiff,

V.

Thomas F. Joyce, defendant.

Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That at all times mentioned in this complaint prior to the 31st day of March, 1903, Curtis W. Holcomb and plaintiff, William C. Keegin, were partners, doing business under the firm name of Holcomb & Keegin, and engaged in the practice of law in the city of Washington, District of Columbia; that both members of said firm were duly admitted to practise in the United States land department and before the secretary of the interior, and in all the offices of the United States having jurisdiction of the disposition of the public lands of the United States; that on the 31st day of March, 1903, the said Curtis W. Holcomb retired from practice, upon an agreement

between himself and plaintiff that plaintiff should complete all of the partnership cases and collect all fees therefor, and account to said Holcomb therefor; that said Holcomb died in the month of May, 1904, and plaintiff is the surviving partner of said partnership.

2. That on or about the 28th day of October, 1901, the defendant retained and employed the said firm of Holcomb & Keegin as his attorneys to prosecute an appeal to the commissioners of the general land office of the United States, from a decision of the register and receiver of the United States land office at Los Angeles, California, adverse to defendant, as to his ownership of the Chandler-Placer mining claim. [Here follows a description of said claim and a statement as to services rendered upon said appeal, and a final decision by the secretary of the interior vacating the decision adverse to the defendant, and reversing the decision of the commissioner of the general land office, etc., as to him, and final decision in said case in favor of this defendant.]

3. That at the time of said employment of said firm of Holcomb & Keegin defendant promised and agreed that he would pay to plaintiff a cash retainer fee of $250, which should be in full for its services if said case was decided against defendant; and that if said case should be decided in favor of defendant by the secretary of the interior, he, defendant, would pay in addition thereto the reasonable value of said services.

4. That defendant has paid on account of said retainer the sum of $200, and no more, and has paid nothing upon account of the reasonable value of said services.

5. That the reasonable value of said services so rendered by the firm of Holcomb & Keegin to defendant, including said balance of the retainer fee aforesaid, is $2,000.

[Pleading cause as a stated account.]

And for another and second cause of action, plaintiff complains. and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff hereby makes the first paragraph of the first cause of action herein a part hereof, as if the same was fully set forth herein.

2. That on the 6th day of May, 1904, an account was stated between the said firm of Holcomb & Keegin and the defendant, and upon such statement a balance of $2,000 was found due to said firm from the defendant, which amount defendant agreed to pay.

3. That defendant has not paid the same, nor any part thereof.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of $2,000, with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the 6th day of May, 1904, and for his costs of suit herein expended. J. W. McKinley, [Verification.] Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 643-By parent, for services of minor child.

$

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges:

1. That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of

[ocr errors]

for work and labor performed for the defendant, at his request, by one M. N., as clerk, in defendant's office at

from

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

2. That said M. N. is the son of the plaintiff, and was, during said period, and still is, under twenty-one years of age.

3. That such services were reasonably worth the sum of $ that said sum has not been paid, nor any part thereof. [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 644-Upon individual and assigned claims for services.

(In Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal. App. 275; 96 Pac. 904.) [Title of court and cause.]

;

Plaintiff, by leave of the court first had and obtained, files this, his amended complaint, and, as a first cause of action against the defendant, alleges:

1. [Allegation as to incorporation of defendant company.]

2. That defendant became indebted to the plaintiff, on account of the balance due on work and services rendered, in the sum of $388, which said work and services were rendered by plaintiff to defendant, within two years last past, in the county of Fresno, state of California, and at the special instance and request of defendant, and upon its express promise to pay for the same.

3. That the said sum of $388 has not been paid, nor any part thereof, but the whole amount remains now due, owing, and unpaid from defendant to the plaintiff.

That plaintiff, as and for a second cause of action against defendant, alleges:

1. [Allegation of incorporation of defendant company.]

2. That defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of

$60, the same being on account of an amount allowed and agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for the keeping of a team for the use of defendant for the period of three months, to wit, for and during the months of March, April, and May, 1905; that said team was kept and used by plaintiff for the defendant at the special instance and request of defendant, and upon its express promise to pay for the keeping of the same.

3. That said sum of $60 has not been paid, nor any part or portion thereof, but the whole of said amount remains now due, owing, and unpaid from defendant to the plaintiff.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the sum of [total of amounts claimed], and for costs of suit, and for such other and further relief as may be proper in the premises.

[Verification.]

Everts & Ewing, Attorneys for plaintiff.

§ 319. ANSWERS.

FORM No. 645-Defense where damages exceed alleged value of services.Action upon assigned claim for reasonable services of a physician.

(In Coyne v. Baker, 2 Cal. App. 640; 84 Pac. 269.)1

[Title of court and cause.]

[After denying specifically the averments of the complaint, that the physician who rendered the alleged services was regularly licensed, etc.; that defendant became indebted to such physician in the sum of $400, on account of services rendered at the special instance and request of defendant within two years prior to the commencement of the action; that such services were reasonably worth the sum of $400; and, upon lack of information or belief sufficient to enable defendant to answer, that such claim was assigned. to plaintiff, the answer proceeds:]

[ocr errors]

4. * Defendant alleges that the alleged cause of action arose out of an implied contract for the payment of witness fees in

1 The defense of this action, pleaded by way of answer, although the damages alleged to have been suffered by the defendant exceeded the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his complaint, the court held good; that it was error to strike it out, and that the defendant should have been allowed to prove it. The cross-complaint, setting up substantially the same facts, was also filed, but demurrer thereto was sustained. The court said that "as the defense could be made available by answer, the ruling on the demurrer to the cross-complaint, if erroneous, was immaterial": Coyne v. Baker, 2 Cal. App. 640, 84 Pac. 269, 270.

« PředchozíPokračovat »