In this action, which was begun by a client against her attorney for the return of money received by him, he has set up a counterclaim seeking to recover for legal services performed for her' and at her request. The only question presented on the appeal is as to the proper amount to be allowed on this counterclaim. An examination of the record does not disclose any reason why we should interfere with the amount awarded by the trial court, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
116 Wash. 699
[No. 16518.
Department Two.
June 14, 1921.]
Emma Arola, Respondent, v. W. F. Hays, Appellant.2
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Frater, J., entered November 16, 1920, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for money received, tried to the court.
Affirmed.
Kelleran & Hannan, for appellant.
J. Grattan O’Bryan, for respondent.
Arola v. Hays
116 Wash. 699
Case Details
116 Wash. 699
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!