
    SPICER vs. YOPP et al.
    
    1. A verdict contrary to evidence must be set aside.
    Complaint, in Laurens Superior Court. • Tried before Judge Hansell at October Term, 1859.
    This was an action by Spicer, an attorney at law, against Yopp, administrator of B. H. Horn, deceased, brought to recover one hundred and eighty dollars, as counsel fees for services rendered in a claim case, wherein deceased was plaintiff ya fi. fa., and James D. Hampton was defendant, and also claimant as trustee for his children.
    Plea — General issue.
    Plaintiff proved that he represented the plaintiff in the case; that his services were worth 10 per cent, upon the amount in controversy ; that the amount involved was about $1,300 00. The ft. fa. which was offered in evidence had endorsed on it a transfer from Horn to defendant, Hampton, as trustee, expressed to be for value received, dated 10th March, 1856. Plaintiff further proved that he had been employed by Horn, and that the case was settled and arranged by Horn, taking some negroes from defendant, Hampton.
    
      The jury found for the plaintiff $58 21, who thereupon moved for a new trial on the following grounds :
    ■ 1st. Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
    2d. Because the verdict was contrary to the charge of the Court.
    The presiding Judge refused the motion for a new trial, and plaintiff excepted, and assigned said refusal as error.
    J. R. Cochran, for plaintiff in error.
    H. M. Moore, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Stephens, J.,

delivering the opinion.

"We are constrained to pronounce that the verdict is contrary to evidence. The plaintiff proved that he was employed in the case by the right person ; that he rendered services in it, and (there being no special interest shown,") that his services were worth about one hundred and eighty dollars. There was no opposing proof, and not a suggestion why the plaintiff's proof was not worthy of credit. Yet the jury gave a verdict for only $58 21.

Judgment reversed.  