CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT CALIFORNIA. ALPERS V. HUNT. [86 CALIFORNIA, 78.] PRACTICE.-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT MAY BE CONSIDERED ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL if the defendant moved for a nonsuit in the trial court on the ground that the contract set out in the complaint was against public policy, and the motion was denied. PRACTICE. ERROR OF COURT IN DENYING NONSUIT, I EXCEPTED TO, may be reviewed on a bill of exceptions. ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT TO Divide Fees, wHETHER AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. -An agreement between an attorney and counselor at law, and a third person, who is neither, that if the latter will procure the employment of the former by a certain litigant he shall be entitled to one third of such compensation as the attorney may receive from such employment, is contrary to public policy and void, and will not support an action against the attorney to recover part of the compensation by him received. R. Percy Wright, for the appellant. Matt I. Sullivan, for the respondent. THORNTON, J. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of William L. Bolte, against John Hunt, executor of the last will and testament of George F. Sharp, to recover a sum of money claimed to be due on a contract alleged to have been made by Sharp and J. C. McCeney with plaintiff's assignor. On the trial, verdict and judgment passed for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted, and from the order granting the motion plaintiff appealed. The main question to be determined herein arises on the complaint. The averments of the complaint set forth that, prior to the first day of August, 1878, George F. Sharp and Julius C. McCeney were attorneys at law, practicing their profession in the city and county of San Francisco; that in August, 1878, Mrs. Volina E. Harrigan was the owner of and claimed an interest in the estate of Eliza Haskell, deceased, which claim was contested by other persons, and required the services of attorneys at law for its enforcement; that, about the time last mentioned, Sharp and McCeney agreed with one William L. Bolte that if he, Bolte, would procure Mrs. Harrigan to employ them as attorneys at law in the matter of her interest and claim, above mentioned, he, Bolte, should be entitled to and should have one third part of whatever should be received by them, or either of them, by reason of and under said employment; that thereupon Bolte procured Mrs. Harrigan to employ them as attorneys at law in the matter of her interest and claim; that, in pursuance of the arrangement thus brought about by Bolte, Mrs. Harrigan entered into a contract with Sharp and McCeney, whereby, in consideration of their professional services to be rendered in and about her said interest and claim, she agreed to give them one third part of whatever share of the estate of Mrs. Haskell she might become entitled to or receive by way of compromise or otherwise; that Sharp and McCeney duly performed all the conditions of their said contract, and by such services she became entitled to a large amount of property, a part of the estate aforesaid; that Mrs. Harrigan thereupon agreed upon a certain sum of money to be paid Sharp and McCeney in satisfaction of their claim against her under the contract above stated, which they agreed to accept; that, in pursuance of this agreement, Mrs. Harrigan executed to them a promissory note for the sum of $14,400, bearing date the thirty-first day of January, 1880, payable two years after its date, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum; that to secure the payment of this note, Mrs. Harrigan, with others, executed to Sharp and McCeney a mortgage upon certain real property; that afterwards McCeney assigned all his interest in the note and mortgage to Sharp; that the note and mortgage were subsequently sold by Sharp for the sum of $17,964.18, which was paid to him; that no part of said sum of money was ever paid to plaintiff or his assignor, Bolte. Other averments are made in the complaint, setting forth the relations of the parties, and material to show plaintiff's right to maintain this action, but as they have no bearing on the question necessary to be determined herein, need not be |