Wingert v. Bowie

⁶¹¹ Adkins, J., delivered, the opinion of the Oounb. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of -appellee’ who sued 'appiellants for professional servicies. Appellee, a prominent member of the bar of Baltimore City, wiaa -called upon by .appellants for advicsa in reference to a bill of complaint which had been filed in the United States District Court in Baltimore by the 'Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, against the First Uational Bank of Hagerstown and appellants and others, directors -of said bank, asking fo-r a forfeiture of the charter and the appointment of .a temporary receiver pending the hearing on the bill. A temporary receiver was appointed.

Appellants owned a majority of the shares of stock of said bank and two of them were respectively president and vicei-prasddent of ’the b-ank. The bill charglad a number of violations of the banking 'and federal reserve laws. It appears from the evidence that appellants admitted to appellee that mo'st of the -charges) were true and he -advised them that in such circumstances there was northing toi he gained by asking for the discharge of the receiver if the hank was to he run under the same management. But appellee, after a conference with the judge of said court and the district attorney, was able to' assure -appellants that if they would sell their stock to responsible people iso that a new and satisfactory management! could be installed, the receiver would be discharged.

To- this they agreed, and appellee was instructed1 to find a purchaser for the stock of appellants at a price that would enable them to pay -their indebtedness. It appears that appellee was well qualified to perform this service by reason of bis wide acquaintance, with financial interests. He obtained an offer from Hamblefbon & doompany, bankers, which he submitted to appállantsi, but which they did not immediately ag!r-ea to> accept. Oh the oomtaatry they indicated .that they were not disposed! to do 'anything in the matter at that time, anjd informed appellee that 'his services would not be required -the nest day -and that he could go to Hew York, where he had an appoinltraeulti for -that day. ⁶¹² In his absence the offer made by Hamblettom & Company, through appellee, was accepted! by appellants substantially as originally made, and the stock sold for $160,000, but they refused to pay appellee for his services.

Whereupon the suit was brought, .and judgment recovered for $5,000. There are four bills of exception, all to the rulings of the trial court on evidence. Only the first and third were pressed in the brief and oral argument of appellants, so it will not be necessary to consider the other two. The first exception was to the adtmiission in evidence of the bill of