Jacks & Co. v. Thweatt & Quarles
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. 1. The contract was against public policy and void. Mull v. Dyson, 10 Eng. Law f Eg. B., TJ. S. Dig., 1858, vol. 6, ed. of John Phelps Patman. 2. Nothing was collected by suit or compromise, so as to allow appellees to recover. The action of a County Court in auditing and allowing a claim is not a judicial determination, etc.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. 1. The contract was against public policy and void. Mull v. Dyson, 10 Eng. Law f Eg. B., TJ. S. Dig., 1858, vol. 6, ed. of John Phelps Patman. 2. Nothing was collected by suit or compromise, so as to allow appellees to recover. The action of a County Court in auditing and allowing a claim is not a judicial determination, etc. Shirk v. Pulaski County, 1¡. Dillon, 810. 3. Appellees were only to render services when requested, and they were never called upon, nor did they ever render any services. 5 Day (Ct.), 1¡.88.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This was an action to recover attorney’s fees, based upon the following written agreement:
“ Helena, Ark., May 12,1877.
“ As Thweat & Quarles have consented to be our attorneys and advise us in a case which we have against Phillips County on account of county.money, we agree to pay them a fee of ten per cent, on all amounts collected of the county, on account of the county money, whether collected by suit or compromise. Fees to be paid in kind and as collections are made. Fifty dollars paid to-day as a retainer to be considered as part of the fee. "We will make no settlement without consulting…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. WebberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Board of Education of Lonoke Cty. v. Lonoke Cty.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Johnson County v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925