
    King v. Somerset Telephone Co., Appellant.
    
      Attorney-at-law — Action for compensation for services — Charge —Review.
    
    In an action by an attorney-at-law to recover for professional services, a judgment on a verdict in his favor will be sustained, where the employment is not denied, the only question being the value of the services, and the only complaint that the charge of the court as a whole was inadequate and unfair, and the appellate court finds that this complaint is not well founded.
    Argued Sept. 30, 1919.
    Appeal, No. 113, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Somerset Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 175, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Alexander King to use of E. Lawrence King v. Somerset Telephone Company.
    Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit by attorney-at-law for professional services. Before Gillan, P. J., specially presiding.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,679.96. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the charge of the court as a whole was inadequate and unfair, quoting it.
    
      Joseph Levy, with him Fred W. Biesecker and Geo. E. Wolfe, for appellant.
    
      Norman T. Boose, for appellee.
    October 22, 1919:
   Per Curiam,

The judgment recovered below by the use-plaintiff was for professional services rendered to the defendant by the legal plaintiff. That he had been employed as one of its counsel was not denied, and the sole question for the consideration of the jury was the value of his services. The single assignment of error is to the entire charge to the jury, the complaint being that it was inadequate and unfair. It is sufficient to say we have not been convinced that the complaint is well founded and calls for the submission to another jury of the simple question involved in the issue.

Judgment affirmed.  