Appellant lawyers brought suit against appellees, insurer and its agent, for intentional interference with contractual relations between attorney and client. The lawyers challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Solano County (California), which sustained the demurrer of the insurer and agent without leave to amend.
The clients entered into a contingent fee contract with the lawyers to prosecute a personal injury suit. The tortfeasor’s insurer and its agent told the clients they did not need the lawyers to settle the claim and thereafter settled the claim without payment of a fee to the lawyers. The lawyers brought suit against the insurer and agent for intentional interference with contractual relations between attorney and client. The trial court sustained the insurer and agent’s demurrer without leave to amend, and the lawyers appealed. ADA lawyer Los Angeles The court held that an action lay for the intentional interference by a third person with a contingency fee contract between an attorney and client either by unlawful means or by means otherwise lawful when there was a lack of sufficient justification. Such an agreement was a legal and valid contract entitled to the protection of the law. An attorney’s interest in his contingent fee agreement was greater than that of a party to a contract terminable at will, as to which it has been held that an intentional and unjustifiable interference was actionable. The court found that the insurer and agent were not entitled to justification as an affirmative defense.
The court reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain the insurer and agent’s demurrer to the lawyers’ complaint without leave to amend and remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer for further proceedings.
Petitioner detainee applied for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from custody on the charge that he wilfully and unlawfully solicited magazine subscriptions without first procuring a canvasser’s permit to do so in violation of Sacramento, Cal., Ordinance No. 166.
Without first obtaining a permit from the chief of police, the detainee, who had not established place of business in the city, canvassed in the city for subscriptions to magazines for publishing houses located outside of California. He was arrested for violating Ordinance No. 166, but the court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to release him from custody. The court determined that the ordinance was authorized as a valid police regulation and was not unconstitutional or void. It did not unlawfully regulate commerce between the states, nor did it abridge the privileges of citizens or deny equal protection of the law. Since canvassing for subscriptions was an entirely different method of selling newspapers, magazines and periodicals from that of disposing of them from an established place of business, they could reasonably be separately classified without violating the rule against discrimination.
The court denied the detainee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.