Opinion
February 7, 1949.
In an action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by respondent as an attorney at law, judgment in favor of respondent, entered after a trial before the court without a jury, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion the trial court unduly limited appellant's cross-examination with respect to the circumstances surrounding respondent's retainer by appellant and as to the circumstances surrounding disciplinary action referred to in respondent's testimony. Such evidence, if adduced, might have thrown additional light on the facts to be considered in appraising the value of respondent's services. Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 781.]