Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Cohn v. Thompson
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided November 25, 1932No. Civ. A. No. 1491Published
1Concurrence
BISHOP, J., Concurring.
I concur. I am not able to agree that a contract by which one obligates himself to hire an attorney to prosecute an action for the collection of a debt due another, if more peaceful methods fail, is not a contract to furnish legal services just because an assignment of the debt, solely for collection, intervenes. (See Elam v. Arzaga, [1932] 122 Cal. App. 742 [10 Pac. (2d) 805].) I am of the opinion, however, that accepting the *792agreement as one to furnish legal services does not require the conclusion that it is invalid and unenforceable for that reason.
It is neither…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
- Elam v. ArzagaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Koepple v. MorrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- County of San Bernardino v. Gate City Creamery Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930