Weller v. Jersey City, H. & P. St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1905
• Citation: 61 A. 459,68 N.J.E. 659
• Parties: WELLER et al. v. JERSEY CITY, H. & P. ST. RY. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

61 A. 459

68 N.J.E. 659

WELLER et al.

v. JERSEY CITY, H. & P. ST. RY. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 19, 1905.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by John I. Weller and another against the Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Company. From a decree of the Court of Chancery (57 Atl. 730) dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

John I. Weller, pro se. William B. Gourley, for respondent.

GUMMERE, C. J. The appellants are attorneys at law, practicing as partners. They allege by their bill that they were employed by one John Meffert to prosecute an action at law against the respondent to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained by him through its negligence while he was a passenger on one of its cars; that Meffert entered into a written contract with them, whereby he agreed to pay them 50 per cent. of all he might recover from the respondent, either by suit, settlement, or otherwise, as damages for such injuries, and assigned to them by the same writing 50 per cent. of any and all sums that might be so recovered therefor; that upon the making of the agreement and assignment they caused a written notice to be served upon the respondent, apprising it of such agreement and assignment. They further allege that, pursuant to the agreement, they commenced an action at law in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in the name of Meffert, against the respondent, and that after the action was on the calendar for trial the respondent, with full knowledge of the agreement between them and Meffert, and of the assignment of him to them, settled the cause of action directly with Meffert, without their knowledge or consent, and paid to him for his use the full amount for which the cause of action had been settled; that Meffert has not paid them for their service; and that he is insolvent. They further allege that they also commenced actions for two other claimants against the respondent, under similar agreements, assignments, and notices, which were settled by it, and the moneys arising therefrom were paid directly to the claimants or for their use; that those claimants have not paid the appellants; and that they are both insolvent. The appellants pray for an accounting by the respondents of the amounts paid by it to the respective claimants with whom the several actions and damages were settled, or for their use; that the respondents be decreed to pay unto the appellants the amount assigned to them by the several claimants; and for further and other relief. To this bill the respondents demurred for want of equity, and after hearing the bill was dismissed.

The sole contention of the appellants, both in the Court of Chancery and before us, is that by the written retainers and assignments of persons having claims against the respondent company for personal injuries, and by timely notice thereof to the company, they became in equity assignees of the proportionate parts of any sums which such injured persons should thereafter receive from the respondent company, either by a composition between them or by recovery and judgment in actions at law, and that a trust thereupon arose, binding the respondent, and making it accountable in equity to them for their proportionate parts thereof. In our opinion this contention is unsound in principle. As was said by the Court of Appeals in New York, in Coughlin v. N. Y. Cent, etc., R. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 450, 27 Am. Rep. 75, the agreements set out in...