Merlaud v. National Metropolitan Bank, 6539.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 6539.,6539. |
| Citation | 84 F.2d 238 |
| Parties | MERLAUD v. NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK OF WASHINGTON, D. C., et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Chas. H. Merillat, T. S. Plowman, and Clyde L. Rogers, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Stanley D. Willis, Francis W. Clements, and John E. Laskey, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing plaintiff's (appellant's) bill to establish an equitable lien against funds in the possession of the National Metropolitan Bank, as executor; or, in the alternative, "to the extent of such amount as the court may determine the plaintiff is justly entitled to receive."
The averments of the bill, material here, are as follows: On February 3, 1931, Isobel H. Lenman died testate in the District of Columbia, and on April 20, 1931, her will was duly admitted to probate. The defendant National Metropolitan Bank was duly appointed and qualified as executor. By the terms of the will the next of kin of Manuel Hunter, deceased, late of Tasmania, Australia, were bequeathed a one-eighteenth interest in the personal property of the estate.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the city of Paris, France, and engaged "in the practice of international probate research," that is, "the ascertainment of heirs and next of kin interested in the estates of decedents and protection of interests of those situated at a great distance and unaware of their rights or unable to protect same by reason of lack of means."
That his investigation disclosed that defendants William Ralston Hunter and Ellen Stringham Hunter "were probably children of the Manuel Hunter provided for in the will," each of whom was a nonresident of the District of Columbia and each resided in Tasmania, Australia. Each was ignorant of the existence of such estate, "and through plaintiff herein was first informed that he or she probably was entitled to a share in an estate of large value situated outside the Dominion of Australia." Thereupon defendants Hunter voluntarily, and upon the promise and agreement of the plaintiff to establish and prosecute to success such rights as they had, executed and delivered to plaintiff their agreement under seal, whereby for a consideration therein expressed the defendants Hunter agreed to pay to plaintiff 33 1/3 per cent. out of any amount recovered by plaintiff out of an estate abroad; each of the Hunters also therein "agreed to execute to plaintiff an assignment against their interest in said estate in such amount, immediately upon plaintiff supplying such beneficiaries with full information and particulars respecting said estate." A copy of that agreement is Exhibit A of the bill.
The agreement (dated March 25, 1931, and executed in Tasmania) recites that the parties thereto are the Hunters, called "the beneficiaries," and Merlaud; whereas Merlaud at his own expense has "discovered the beneficiaries and has informed them that they are entitled to a share in an undistributed estate abroad, the existence of which they the beneficiaries are unaware and has agreed with the beneficiaries to give them particulars and information respecting the same with a view of the same being got in and recovered it is now therefore distinctly understood and agreed that the said G. Merlaud shall personally pay any and all expenses incidental to the claiming and recovery of the said estate and their title thereto including solicitor's and attorney's fees and Court costs without obligation to the beneficiaries therefor excepting that if it be determined by the Court that the beneficiaries are entitled to a share in the distribution of the said estate then the said G. Merlaud shall have and receive repayment of any and all sums so paid from such sum as may be awarded them from the said estate." If the information Merlaud claims to have respecting the estate proves to be incorrect and the beneficiaries fail to recover anything, Merlaud shall have no claim against the beneficiaries, their only obligation being to pay the commission at the rate hereinafter mentioned as and when their share in the said estate is actually got in and recovered and not otherwise. And as remuneration for his services the said G. Merlaud shall be entitled to charge and shall be paid by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feld Entm't, Inc. v. Am. Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
...expectation of reimbursement from the client.” Marshall v. Bickel, 445 A.2d 606, 609 (D.C.1982) (citing Merlaud v. Nat'l Metrop. Bank of Washington, D.C., 84 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C.1936)). FEI claims that the arrangement between the attorneys of record in the ESA case and Rider was champertous;......
-
Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NCRIC, In. (In re Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc.)
...and their clients. See Bickel, 445 A.2d at 608; Golden Commissary Corp. v. Shipley, 157 A.2d 810, 814 (D.C.1960); Merlaud v. Nat'l Metro. Bank, 84 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C.Cir.1936). Unfortunately, cases involving attorney-client agreements are of limited utility when analyzing agreements that do......
-
Brown v. Reichmann
...sued on was champertous and therefore invalid and unenforceable. Taylor v. Perkins et al., 157 S.W. 122, 106 A. L. R. 1496; Merlaud v. Nat'l Met. Bank, 84 F.2d 238; Curry v. Dahlberg, supra, and cases there cited; Am. Jur., sec. 2, p. 551; 11 C. J., p. 231. (c) The services testified to by ......
-
Brown v. Gesellschaft Fur Drahtlose Tel., MBH
...25 L.Ed. 899; Owens v. Wilkinson, 20 App.D.C. 51, certiorari denied 187 U.S. 646, 23 S.Ct. 845, 47 L.Ed. 347; Merlaud v. National Metropolitan Bank, 65 App. D.C. 385, 84 F.2d 238, certiorari denied 299 U.S. 584, 57 S.Ct. 109, 81 L.Ed. 430; 6 Williston, Contracts (Williston and Thompson's ed......
-
HEIR HUNTING.
...supra, at 107 n.18. (52) See infra text accompanying notes 93-97. (53) See, e.g., Merlaud v. Nat'l Metro. Bank of Wash., D.C., 84 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C. Cir. 1936) ("[I]f this be not champerty, we fail to see wherein there can be champerty." (quoting Peck v. Heurich, 167 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1897......