
    Haralson v. Camp & Al.
    In a suit for professional services as an attorney at law, when no other services were rendered than aiding to draw a petition in a suit which was afterwards abandoned; the verdict of a jury disallowing the plaintiff’s demand was not disturbed.
    Appeal from the conrt of the third district, for the parish of “West Feliciana, the jndge thereof presiding.
    This is an action for professional services as attorney and counsellor at law. The plaintiff alleges he was employed with another lawyer to institute suit in the probate court of Pointe Ooupée, to compel a tutrix to render an account, and to annul certain probate proceedings and recover for the plaintiffs therein (present defendants) a plantation and about forty slaves; that the [268] petition was filed and he was at much trouble to investigate the law and facts of the case. He states there was no sum stipulated or agreed upon, hut he alleges his services were worth $500, for which he prays judgment.
    The defendants admitted they employed the plaintiff, hut that he wholly failed in the suit; that he neglected to attend to it; whereby they were compelled to abandon it, from his non-attendance and neglect. They reconvene for damages.
    The cause was finally submitted to a jury on a mass of testimony, who returned a verdict for the defendants. Prom judgment confirming the verdict, after an unsuccessful attempt to procure a new trial, the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Stevens for plaintiff.
    
      Lyons contra.
   Bullard, J.

delivered the opinion of the conrt.

This is an action by an attorney and counsellor at law to recover the value of his professional services on a proceeding in the court of probates for the parish of Pointe Ooupée. Ho other services are shown except in aiding to draw a petition. The suit was ultimately abandoned by the plaintiffs, who are the defendants in this case. The questions whether it was the fault of the plaintiff'that the suit was not prosecuted, and what was the value of the plaintiff’s services, were left to the jury, who found a verdict for the defendants, and the jndge overruled a motion for a new trial.

A careful examination of the evidence has not satisfied us that it is our duty to disturb the verdict.

The judgment of the district court is, therefore, affirmed with costs.  