Brown v. Beauchamp
| Decision Date | 04 October 1827 |
| Parties | Brown v. Beauchamp. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Contracts. Champerty and Maintenance. Void Contracts. Misdemeanors.
ERROR TO THE WASHINGTON CIRCUIT; WILLIAM L. KELLY, JUDGE.
Wickliffe for plaintiff.
Haggin and Loughborough, for defendant.
Beauchamp sued Brown, upon a covenant, by which it appears that the heirs of M'Cracken, had instituted a suit for a tract of land which Benjamin Brown had conveyed to the defendant William Brown; that the defendant had employed the plaintiff to attend to the defense of the suit so instituted by M'Cracken's heirs, and if Beauchamp should compel the said heirs to centre the improvement on which their claim depended, Brown to pay Beauchamp one hundred dollars, if not nothing; and if Beauchamp defeated the claim of the heirs then Brown to give Beauchamp one-half of all the land within Brown's patent, above where M'Cracken's lower line would come to, if the improvement was centered, besides the one hundred dollars.
Agreement between Beauchamp and the Browns.
The declaration avered, that by the decision of the court of appeals, the claim of M'Cracken's heirs was declared invalid, and demanded the money, but not the land, according to the stipulations in the covenant.
Declaration.
The defendant demurred to the declaration, and his demurrer was overruled; he pleaded that Beauchamp at the date of the covenant, had not any interest in the controversy with M'Cracken's heirs; that he was not an attorney or counsellor at law, at or before, or since the said covenant, and that the said covenant was contrary to the laws against champerty and maintenance, and void; to this the plaintiff demurred, and his demurrer was sustained.
Demurrer to the declaration--overruled. Pleas, of champerty, and of non-performance of conditions precedent, overruled.
The defendant also pleaded, that Beauchamp had not performed the covenant on his part; to this the plaintiff demurred, and his demurrer was sustained.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
The plaintiff has judgment, according to the assessment of the jury upon a writ of inquiry, for the money and interest, amounting to $125 67.
Upon the pleadings, the judgment should have been for the defendant Brown; because the contract was for maintenance and champerty.
Plea of champerty adjudged good by this court.
Maintenance signifies, an unlawful taking in hand, or upholding of quarrels, or sides, to the disturbance or hindrance of common right. It is divided into two classes. First: Ruralis, or in the country, as where one assists another in his pretensions to certain lands, or stirs up quarrels and suits in the country, in relation to matters wherein he is in no way concerned. Secondly: Curialis, or in a court of justice, as where one officiously intermeddles in a suit depending in any such court, which no way belongs to him, by assisting either party with money, or otherwise, in the prosecution or defense of any such suit.
Classes and species of maintenance and their definitions.
Of this second class of maintenance, there are three species. First: Where one maintains another in his suit without any contract to have part of the thing in suit, which generally goes under the common name of maintenance. Secondly: Where one maintains one side, to have part of the thing in suit, which is called champerty. Thirdly: Embracery, as where one attempts to corrupt, or influence, or instruct a jury, or any way to incline them to be more favorable to the one side, or the other, by money, letters, promises, threats, or persuasions, except only by the strength of evidence, and the arguments of counsel in open court, at the trial of the cause; so also by laboring a juror to appear, and act according to conscience, or by indirect means, as where persons procure themselves or others to be sworn on a jury to serve the one side. (1 Hawk. pl. cor. chap. 83, 84, 85, p. 535 to 552; 2d. Inst. 212, 213; Coke Litt. 368; 1 Sand. 301).
The covenant in question, falls directly within the first and second species of unlawful maintenance of a suit in court that is to say, within simple maintenance and champerty; for the plaintiff in this action, not only undertook to manage and assist in the defense of the suit of M'Cracken's heirs against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fordson Coal Co. v. Garrard
...Keen or Murphy tract and received the other property for the agreement and undertaking stated. In the case of Brown v. Beauchamp, 21 Ky. 413, 5 T.B. Mon. 413, 416, 17 Am. Dec. 81, the court defined champerty as the unlawful maintenance of a suit in consideration of some bargain to have part......