Bedford v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank Of South Carolina, 15595.

• Citation: 28 S.E.2d 405
• Decision Date: 03 December 1943
• Docket Number: No. 15595.,15595.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: BEDFORD et al. v. CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NAT. BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA et al.

28 S.E.2d 405

BEDFORD et al.
v.
CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NAT. BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA et al.

No. 15595.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 3, 1943.

[28 S.E.2d 405]

Appeal from Common Pleas Court, of Charleston County; M. M. Mann, Judge.

Action by Alice Huey Bedford, as executrix of the estate of J. Claude Bedford, deceased, and others, against the Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina and others, administrators, to recover attorneys' fees. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

H. L. Erckmann, Barnwell & Whaley, and Mitchell & Horlbeck, all of Charleston, for appellants.

Henry E. Davis, of Florence, for respondents.

STUKES, Justice.

The will of the philanthropist, Miss Mary Jane Ross, late of Charleston, has become legendary in the annals of this court. Unusual legal controversies concerning its beneficent provisions whereby her considerable fortune was distributed to the public objects of her patriotic bounty have been decided here before. It is not unfitting that these permanent records of public circulation have been made of the splendid gifts by Miss Ross to cherished institutions of her historic city, the like of which are regrettably rare in this State. To most of these former adjudications brief references will have to be made in this decision.

In that reported in Medical Soc. of South Carolina v. South Carolina Nat. Bank of Charleston, 197 S.C. 96, 14 S.E.2d 577, called the museum case, the gift by Miss Ross of several hundred thousand dollars in real and personal property to establish and maintain in perpetuity a family memorial museum was found invalid, at which time it was thought that this portion of the estate would go to the Medical Society of South Carolina (Roper Hospital of Charleston) and the Presbyterian Hospital of Philadelphia, as residuary devisees and legatees under the will, and the judgment so provided. But it was suggested by counsel for appellants in that proceeding, after rendition of the circuit decree and on their appeal to this court, by their exception XIX, that under the doctrine of dependent, relative revocation the hospitals were not the true beneficiaries, but the Charleston Library and its endowment fund, the present appellants, were. The latter will be henceforth herein referred to as the library. The important point suggested was expressly not then decided by this court for it had not been raised in the trial and, incidentally, the library was not a party to that action. All of this will more fully appear by reference to the report of the decision, cited above.

Promptly thereafter suit was brought by the library against the administrators of the estate and the hospitals wherein it prevailed under the doctrine of testamentary construction mentioned, dependent, relative (or conditional) revocation; and the library was substituted as the beneficiary of this magnificent gift. The unique nature of the case, its large proportions, and the zeal of counsel engaged caused the court to hear and consider arguments twice upon the identical question, --an exceptional procedure. See the decisions reported in Charleston Library Society v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 200 S.C. 96, 20 S.E.2d 623, and Id., 201 S.C. 447, 23 S.E.2d 362.

The surprising course of legal events just mentioned gave rise to the present litigation. The able and industrious surviving counsel who represented the hospitals in these suits and the personal representatives of two of them, deceased, are the plaintiffs in the present action. Their contract for compensation with their hospital clients provided that they be paid reasonable fees from the funds recovered, patently a contingent fee, contingent upon a successful

[28 S.E.2d 406]

conclusion of the litigation. South Carolina Public Service Authority v. Weeks, 201 S.C. 199, 22 S.E.2d 249. Therefore, they received no compensation (from the fund finally accruing to the library)...