Steiner, Crum & Weil v. Smith Sons Lumber Co.

I have reconsidered my concurrence in the majority opinion on the former appeal (Smith Sons Lumber Co. v. Steiner, Crum & Weil, 204 Ala. 306, 85 South. 758), and, while I am bound still to concede that the grounds of decision are not so clear as I would like, my best judgment now is that the result reached on the first trial was correct, and should have been affirmed.

Appellants, as attorneys, and appellees, as clients, entered into a contract for a contingent fee to be paid for services to be rendered in an action to be brought by appellants for appellees against Tillis. The contract and the…