Harnett v. Garvey

Headnote

In asking hypothetical questions, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of experts, counsel may assume facts as they claim them to exist; and an error in the assumption does not make the interrogatory objectionable, if it is within the possible or probable range of the evidence.

This was an action to recover for alleged services as attorney and counsel.

One item of the account was for counsel and advice, and

giving an opinion as to the right of the State' to maintain an action which had been begun in the name of the people against defendant. Plaintiff Harnett testified to the rendering the services ; that he spent most- of the time for two or three weeks in examining the question ; and that defendant had told him the amount of property to be affected was about $500,000. Plaintiff then called an attorney as a witness, and asked him what would be a reasonable charge for counsel and advice, and the giving of an opinion as to the right of the State to maintain the action, occupying most of plaintiff’s time for two or three weeks, where the amount of the property affected or to be affected was $500,000. This was objected to by defendant’s counsel, on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the assumption as to the value of the property. The objection was overruled, and defendant’s counsel, excepted. Held, that the question was proper, the court stating the rule as above.

Various other questions were presented as to the reception of evidence, which were disposed of in view of the circumstances of the case.