Dodge v. Schell

• Decision Date: 15 June 1882
• Parties: DODGE and others v. SCHELL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

12 F. 515

DODGE and others v. SCHELL.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

June 15, 1882

John E Parsons, for the motion.

W. N Cromwell, contra.

WALLACE C.J.

This is a motion by plaintiffs to vacate an appearance by an attorney in their behalf as authorized. The attorney does not dispute the plaintiffs' right to substitute another attorney in his place, but insists they should not be permitted to do so until they fulfil their obligations to one whom the present attorney immediately represents. Prior to 1864, Phelps, Dodge & Co., the plaintiffs, made an agreement with one Douglass by which they employed the latter to prosecute a claim of theirs against the government growing out of alleged illegal exactions of duties and fees. By this agreement Douglass undertook to 'endeavor to establish the claim by legal decisions or otherwise. ' He was to be paid for his services a sum equal to one-half of the recovery, and was to bear all the costs and expenses of the proceedings. In 1864 he employed attorneys, and brought suit in the name of the plaintiffs against the collector of the port of New York. From that time until 1876, when he died, he had the exclusive control of the suit. Substitutions of attorneys had been made by him, and he had defrayed all the expenses. After his death his executrix assumed control of the suit, and under her administration the present attorney was substituted as plaintiffs' attorney, and a judgment for $17,498 recovered for the plaintiffs. Until this judgment was recovered the plaintiffs took no part in the proceedings, and apparently manifested no interest therein. Their first intervention in the suit was an effort to wrest its control from the executrix. A motion was made, ostensibly by the defendant in the suit, but apparently at the instigation or in the interest of the plaintiffs, to vacate the appearance of the attorney substituted by the executrix upon the ground that the agreement between plaintiffs and Douglass was champertous and void, and, if not, because the executrix had no power to appoint an attorney for the plaintiffs. This motion was heard before my predecessor in this court and denied. Notwithstanding this the plaintiffs succeeded through the co-operation of the defendant's attorney, in ejecting the attorney from the suit during its pendency upon a writ of error from the judgment. Upon the affirmance of the judgment, however, when they applied to enter the mandate in this court, the clerk of this court refused to recognize the right of any attorney to appear for them except the present attorney. Hence this motion. The plaintiffs now insist that their contract with Douglass was one for his personal exertions, and by his death before entire performance they are released from all obligations to his executrix; that his interest did not survive his death, and his executrix was not authorized to assume charge of the suit and appoint the present attorney.

That the executrix of Douglass has a valid claim against the plaintiffs for the value of his services up to the time of his death, the entire performance of the contract on his part being prevented by his death, is established by many authorities, among which are Wolfe v. Howes, 20 N.Y. 197; Spalding v. Rosa, 71 N.Y. 40, cited in the brief of plaintiffs' counsel. It is more doubtful whether the executrix, upon Douglass' death, had the right to control the further prosecution of the action. But after she was permitted to do so by the plaintiff for a considerable period of time, and by her exertions now seek to control, the objection to her conduct seems an ungracious one, and should not be willingly enforced. The question of her authority to appoint the attorney must have been passed upon by Judge Blatchford on the former motion to vacate the appearance, and been determined affirmatively; otherwise the motion would have prevailed. Whether this authority was held to be within the scope and contemplation of the original contract between plaintiffs and Douglass, or to be implied from the subsequent conduct of the parties, does not appear; nor is it material now. It suffices that there are no clamorous equities in the present application to urge a reconsideration of that adjudication. For 13 years the plaintiffs acquiesced in what was done by Douglass and his executrix, but from the time they ascertained that a large judgment had been recovered, they have seemingly been unwilling to recognize the agreement. They now present affidavits in which, upon information and by innuendo, they impute fraudulent conduct to Douglass, not towards themselves, but towards the government. They claim the judgment would not have been affirmed upon the writ of error except for the exertions of counsel employed by themselves; but it appears that competent counsel were employed by the executrix and ignored by the plaintiffs. They represent themselves willing to pay a reasonable compensation to the executrix; but at the same time they are insisting they are under no legal obligation, and they have made no definite proposition of payment.

Notwithstanding all this the plaintiffs have the right to collect the judgment themselves, and for that purpose to appoint such attorney as they desire. They did not transfer the cause of action to Douglass, nor did the agreement effect an equitable assignment to Douglass of half the proceeds of the suit. The suit now being at an end the executrix has no interest in controlling its further disposition. She has, however, the right to assert any lien upon the judgment which exists by virtue of the agreement, and the service rendered under it. If Douglass had been an attorney the agreement and services would have created a lien. There is no magic in the name attorney which conjures up a lien. It is the nature of the services and the control, actual or potential, which the mechanical or professional laborer has over the object intrusted to him which determine whether a lien is or is not conferred. The services which Douglass was employed to render and did render were in character attorney's...