Knut v. Nutt

• Decision Date: 07 December 1903
• Citation: 35 So. 686,83 Miss. 365
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SARGENT P. KNUT v. JOHN K. NUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ET. AL

35 So. 686

83 Miss. 365

SARGENT P. KNUT v. JOHN K. NUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ET. AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 7, 1903

FROM the chancery court of Adams county. HON. WILLIAM P.S VENTRESS, Chancellor.

Knut the appellant, was the complainant, and Nutt, administrator and others, appellees, were defendants in the court below.

In May 1874, a contract was entered into between Mrs. Julia A. Nutt, administratrix of the estate of Haller Nutt, and one Denver, an attorney, the material part of which is set out in the opinion of the court, by which Denver undertook to prosecute a claim of the estate of Haller Nutt against the United States Government for the use of property, and for property of which said estate was deprived, during the Civil War, by the officers of the government, amounting to $ 1,000,000. By consent of Mrs. Nutt, administratrix, this contract was transferred on March 19, 1887, by Denver, to appellant, Sargent P. Knut. In pursuance of this agreement, Sargent P. Knut prosecuted this claim before the quartermaster general, before congress, and before the court of claims, and in May, 1902, succeeded in getting an appropriation to pay the estate of Haller Nutt the sum of $ 89,993.83. Pending the prosecution of the claim, Mrs. Julia Nutt died, and one Williams was appointed in her place, and he also died, and John K. Nutt, appellee, was appointed to succeed him, and, as such administrator, received the money. Appellant, Sargent P. Knut filed his bill of complaint in this case in the chancery court against John K. Nutt, administrator, and the other heirs of Holler Nutt, to recover 33 1-3 per cent. of the amount collected from the government, under the contract which had been assigned to him; and by amendment to his bill, he claimed that, if he was not entitled to pay under the contract, he was entitled to reasonable compensation for his services, equaling $ 30,000. All the heirs of Haller Nutt, except three, answered by purely formal answers, and submitted the matter to the judgment of the court. The other three denied that Sargent P. Knut was entitled to any compensation, and set up that the contract with Denver, which was assigned to Sargent P. Knut, was contrary to good morals and public policy, and therefore null and void. Much testimony was taken, and on final hearing the chancellor held that complainant was not entitled to recover, because the contract was violative of the United States statutes, and null and void, and dismissed the petition. From that decree complainant appealed to the supreme court.

Reversed.

Catchings & Catchings, for appellant.

On the question that, if the attorney procured personal solicitations to be made to members of Congress, the contract, which was valid in its inception, did not thereby become invalid, counsel cited Barry v. Capen, 151 Mass. 99, 23 N.E. 735, 6 L. R. A., 808; Fox v. Rogers, 171 Mass. 546, 50 N.E. 1041; McDearmort v. Sedgewick, 140 Mo. 172, 39 S.W. 776; Sawyer v. Taggart, 77 Ky. 734; Armstrong v. Bank, 133 U.S. 439, 10 S.Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed., 747; Faikney v. Reynous, 4 Burrows, 2069; Petrie v. Hannay, 3 Tr. 418; Farmer v. Russell, 1 B. & P., 296; Planter's Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall., 483, 21 L. Ed., 473; McBlair v. Gibbes, 17 How., 232-236, 15 L. Ed., 132; Bly v. Sec. Bank, 79 Pa. 453; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall., 70, 17 L. Ed., 732.

A contract to prosecute a claim before the Southern Claims Commission was legitimate and valid. Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U.S. 43, 3 S.Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed., 64; Bergen v. Frisbie, 125 Cal. 168, 57 P. 784; Bryan v. Reynolds, 5 Wis., 200, 68 Am. Dec., 55; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N.W. 715, 33 L. R. A., 166, 57 Am. St. Rep., 928; Coquillard's Adm'r. v. Bearss, 21 Ind. 479, 83 Am. Dec., 362; Gil v. Williams, 12 La. Ann., 219, 68 Am. Dec., 767: Hatzfield v. Gulden, 7 Watts, 152, 31. Am. Dec., 750: Mills v. Mills, 40 N.Y. 543, 100 Am. Dec., 535; Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala., 719, 42 Am. Dec., 659; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kan. 692, 31 Am. Rep., 213: Powers v. Skinner, 34 Vt. 274, 80 Am. Dec., 677; Chippewa Go. v. Chicago, 75 Wis. 224, 44 N.W. 17, 6 L. R. A., 601; Bermudez Co. v. Critchfield, 62 Ill.App. 221; Oscanyon v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261, 26 L. Ed., 539; Rose v. Truax, 21 Barb., 361; Harris v. Roof's Executors, 10 Barb., 489; and Cary v. Western Union Co., 47 Hun., 614.

An attorney is entitled to recover for his services, even if he resorted to lobbying practices. Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 641; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U.S. 639, 19 S.Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed., 1117.

Reed & Brandon, Brown & Martin, and J. A. Clinton, for appellees.

The appellant, Knut, is not entitled to recover for the following reasons:

1. Because the contract with Denver is a lobbying contract, and therefore null and void in its inception, and Knut has no rights and can have none thereunder; and

2. Because the services, if any, rendered and intended to be rendered by Knut were lobbying services, contrary to positive law and to public policy, and appellant cannot recover for such services upon a quantum meruit.

The contract with Denver was a lobbying contract. The words "through any diplomatic negotiations" must mean something. What diplomatic negotiations could possibly be rendered by an attorney of a citizen of the United States against the government of a proper and legal nature? Can the words in this instance be intended for any purpose except to conceal and cover "lobbying services" intended by both parties to be rendered?

If appellant cannot recover upon the Denver contract, then he cannot be awarded a fee upon a quantum meruit.

Any services that may have been rendered were rendered in pursuance of the contract. That which vitiates the contract, vitiates the right of Knut to recover upon a quantum meruit for those services. Moreover the effective services were unquestionably of a lobbying character.

On the questions involved counsel cited the following authorities: Nutt v. United States, 125 U.S. 650; Revised Statutes of the United States, sec. 3477; Harris v. Oil Mill., 78 Miss. 603; Wylie v. Cox, 15 How. (U.S.), 415; Wright v. Tebbitts, 91 U.S. 252; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U.S. 548; Taylor v. Bemis, 110 U.S.; 42; Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410; Sanborn v. Maxwell, 29 Wash. Rept., 436; Owens v. Wilkinson, 30 Wash. Rept., 436; Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U.S. 484; Hager v. Swayne, 149 U.S. 242; Ball v. Halsell, 161 U.S. 72; Sweeney v. McLeod, 15 Or. 338, 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 28; Trist v. Childs, 21 Wal. (U. S.), 441; Alpers v. Hunt, 9 L. R. A., 482; Marshall v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 16 How. (U.S.), 313, 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 969; Ib., 989; Usher v. McBrantley, 3 Dillon, 385; Providence Tod Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. (U.S.), 45; Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co., 85 F. 4; Boyd v. Barclay, 34 Am. Dec., 762; Hurst v. Test, 42 Am. Dec., 659; Weed v. Black, 2 McArthur, 268; Bermudez v. Critchfield, 62 Ill. 221; Goodrich v. Tenny, 144 Ill. 422; Cook v. Shipman, 24 Ill. 614; McBrantley v. Chandler, 31 Am. Rep., 213; Houlton v. Dunn, 30 L. R. A., 737; Houlton v. Nichols, 33 L. R. A., 166; Millbank v. Jones, 24 Am. St. Rep., 454; Spaulding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. St. Rep., 379; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U.S. 111; Edwards County v. Jennings, 89 Tex. 620; Rose v. Truax, 21 Barbour, 361; Brown v. Brown, 34 Barbour, 533.

Argued orally by T. C. Catchings, for appellant, and by J. A. Clinton, for appellee.

OPINION

CALHOON, J.

Section 3477, Rev. St. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2320), reads as follows (the italics being ours): "All transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorneys, orders or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or of any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuance of a warrant for the payment thereof." Appellant Knut petitioned the chancery court to cause John K. Nutt, the present administrator of the estate of Haller Nutt, deceased, to pay him 33 1-3 per cent of $ 89,993,83, recently received by this administrator from the United States government, and his contingent fee for services as attorney at law under a written contract, with which he is in privity, as assignee of it, made between one Denver and Julia A. Nutt, then executrix of Haller Nutt, on May 18, 1874. In an amended petition he asks that, if he be not entitled under the contract, he be allowed $ 30,000 as the reasonable value of his services. It is not to be disputed that, if Denver could have recovered Knut can recover, this being the only contract. Mr. Knut exhibits with his petition two papers, each dated May 18, 1874, and each signed by the executrix. One puts in Denver's charge the claim of about $ 1,000,000, and says: "To prosecute the same before any of the courts of the United States, and upon appeal to the supreme court of the United States, or before any of the departments of the government, or before the congress of the United States, or before any officer, or commission or convention specially authorized to take cognizance of said claim, or through any diplomatic negotiations as may be deemed best by him for the interests of the party of the second part" (the executrix). (The italics are ours. ) This paper then proceeds as follows (the italics being curs): "The party of the second part (the executrix) agrees to pay the party of the first part a sum equal to 33 1-3 per cent of the amount which may be allowed on said claim, the payment of which is hereby made a lien upon said claim and...