Parsons v. Maury

• Decision Date: 11 June 1903
• Citation: 101 Va. 516,44 S.E. 758
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: PARSONS. v. MAURY & MAURY.

44 S.E. 758

101 Va. 516

PARSONS.

v.MAURY & MAURY.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 11, 1903.

ATTORNEYS—SERVICES—BROKERS—APPEAL —RULES OF DECISION.

1. Under Code, § 3484, providing that when a case at law is decided without the intervention of a jury, and the party excepts to the decision as contrary to the evidence, and the evidence is certified, the rule of decision in the appellate court shall be as on a demurrer to the evidence by the party excepting, the appellant is considered as admitting his adversaries' evidence and all just inferences therefrom, and as waiving his own evidence which conflicts therewith, and all inferences from his own evidence, though not in conflict with his adversaries', which do not necessarily result therefrom.

2. Where defendants, who were attorneys, were engaged to represent plaintiff in the sale of state coupon bonds, to procure them to be received in payment of taxes, and conduct litigation against the state then pending in the United States Supreme Court to set aside statutes passed by the state which rendered such coupons and bonds unavailable, and it was understood by the parties that defendants were to enter into a long and difficult effort to compel the state to receive such coupons in payment of taxes, defendants were not mere brokers, and the value of their services was not to be determined on that basis.

Error to Circuit Court of City of Richmond. Action by Edwin Parsons against Maury & Maury. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Williams, Bryan & Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. S. Stringfellow, for defendants in error.

KEITH, P. Edwin Parsons sued Maury & Maury in assumpsit in the circuit court of the city of Richmond; defendants pleaded the general issue and set-off; and, the whole matter of law and fact having been submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, a judgment was entered for the defendants, which is now before us for review.

This litigation grows out of a controversy between the state of Virginia and the holders of her bonds issued under an act passed in 1871, bearing coupons receivable in payment of all taxes due the state. A large block of these bonds was held by Edwin Parsons, deceased, under whom Edwin Parsons, the plaintiff in error, claims as assignee.

The people of Virginia were firmly convinced that a great wrong had been perpetrated upon them by the act of 1871. They were satisfied that under Its provisions a debt far in excess of what they ought to pay had been assumed, and a tax sufficient to meet the interest upon the debt as fixed by that act, and to discharge the absolutely essential functions of government, would be oppressive and ruinous. There was a strong impression also that many forged and spurious bonds were in existence, the coupons from which were being foisted upon her tax collectors. Whether these opinions and convictions were well founded or not, it is now idle to inquire. They were so universally entertained thatthe Legislature of the state passed laws forbidding the reception of coupons by tax collectors, and from time to time passed other acts to enforce the policy of the state in this respect, and to hinder and embarrass in every possible way the forcing of tax-receivable coupons into the treasury of the state, in payment of taxes, debts, and demands, instead of current money. These efforts upon the part of the state were met upon the part of her creditors by suits in the state and federal courts, many of which found their way to the Court of Appeals of the state and the Supreme Court of the United States. The contest went on for years. Every success upon the part of the coupon holder before the courts was met and checked by some new act which would for the time at least serve to delay the creditor. Finally the Court of Appeals of Virginia at the March term, 1894, in the case of Commonwealth v. McCullough, reported in 90 Va. 597, 19 S. E. 114, held that the acts of March 30, 1871, and March 28, 1879, under which bonds were issued, having coupons thereto attached, receivable at and after maturity for debts, dues, and demands due the state, were wholly unconstitutional and void. From this decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was finally decided December 5, 1898 (19 Sup. Ct. 134), the Court of Appeals of Virginia being reversed. Justice Brewer, who delivered the opinion, says: "Perhaps no litigation has been more severely contested, or has presented more intricate and troublesome questions, than that which has arisen under the coupon legislation of Virginia. That legislation has been prolific of many cases, both in the state and federal courts, not a few of which finally came to this court." Then follows a list of 15 cases, illustrative of various questions arising under the coupon legislation of the state, which found their way to the Supreme Court. The cases in the state courts and inferior federal tribunals were almost without limit.

Edwin Parsons, deceased, as we have seen, was the owner of a large number of coupon bonds. He determined to compel the state to carry out her contract with him. In order to do so it was necessary that he should first find a market for his coupons, that is to say, a Virginia taxpayer who would buy his coupons and then enter into litigation with the state to compel their reception in accordance with the contract. To this end he employed the firm of Maury & Maury. His bargain with them was that they were to take the coupons, place them with taxpayers, and account to him for 50 cents on the dollar of the face value of the...