Campbell v. Tunnicliff

Headnote

Attorney and client — contract of retainer — champerty — revocation of contract.

Campbell v. Tunnicliff (2 cases), 185 App. Div. 506 , affirmed.

Cross-appeals in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 29, 1919, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term bringing up for review an order of said Appellate Division which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to resettle the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The actions were brought to vacate, annul and declare void an agreement entered into between the parties to these actions, whereby the plaintiffs, nephews and the heirs at law of John William Campbell, who had died a resident of the state of California, agreed to pay to the defendant, an attorney at law,

one-half of all moneys and property that might be obtained, realized or recovered from the said estate, and assigned an undivided one-half interest in and to all such money or property so obtained, realized or recovered to the defendant. Also to vacate and set aside powers of attorney authorizing defendant to apply for a petition in the name and stead of the plaintiffs to any Surrogate’s Court, Probate Court or civil court or any court having jurisdiction over the estate of the said John William Campbell, and to collect, recover and receive all sums of money which shall become due to the plaintiffs, and otherwise to deal with the property that may be recovered as therein specifically set forth. The complaint alleged that plaintiffs were induced to execute said contracts and powers by fraud and that upon discovery of same said plaintiffs rescinded the said powers of attorney and assignment and terminated the employment of the defendant as their attorney. The trial court held that the contract of retainer and power of attorney had been effectually annulled; also that they were void ab initio for champerty. The Appellate Division modified by striking out the finding as to champerty.