Wright v. Tebbitts
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Citation | 91 U.S. 252,23 L.Ed. 320 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. TEBBITTS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Wright, the defendant below, a licensed trader in the Choctaw country at the commencement of the rebellion, claimed that he had sustained large losses by the use of his property by the Choctaw nation, and that large sums were due to him for goods taken by or sold to members of the nation, and for money advanced to it. By a treaty, concluded April 28, 1866, between the United States and the Choctaws and Chickasaws, it was stipulated and agreed that this claim, with others, should be investigated and examined by a commission to be appointed by the President, and that such sum as might be found due should be paid by the United States out of any money belonging to that nation in the possession of the United States. 14 Stat. 781.
Tebbitts, the plaintiff below, an attorney-at-law, was employed by Wright to present and prosecute his claim before this commission; and he accordingly, in August, 1866, appeared before the commissioners, and presented an argument in its support. Afterwards, on the 9th August, 1866, Wright executed to Tebbitts a memorandum in writing, as follows:——
'Jonas M. Tebbitts having rendered valuable services to me in securing my claims under the fiftieth article of the treaty of April 28 with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, I hereby bind myself to pay him one-tenth of whatever I may realize from the Choctaw Indians under said article, whenever the money comes into my hands; which payment, when made, will be in full compliance with my verbal contract, made in April last, with John B. Luce.'
Wright subsequently realized on his claim $20,541.28; the last payment having been made to him in June, 1869. This suit was brought by Tebbitts to recover compensation for his services, which Wright refused to pay. He claimed $2,054 being ten per cent on the sum paid to Wright; and for this amount he obtained judgment upon the verdict of a jury.
To reverse this judgment, the present writ of error has been prosecuted.
Mr. George W. Paschal for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. R. D. Mussey for the defendant in error.
The errors assigned upon this record are, in substance, that the contract given in evidence is illegal:——
1. Because it is an assignment of a one-tenth interest in the claim of Wright, and not 'freely made and executed in the presence of at least two witnesses, after the allowance of the claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuance of a warrant for the payment thereof,' as required by sect. 3477, Rev. Stat.;
2. Because it is tainted with illegality and immorality, and is against public policy; and,
3. Because it is champertous, as it was a bargain to pay one-tenth of whatever might be collected.
1. As to the first objection, all that need be said is, that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Gesellschaft Fur Drahtlose Tel., MBH
...955; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U.S. 12, 26 S.Ct. 216, 50 L.Ed. 348; Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 40 S. Ct. 474, 64 L.Ed. 843; Wright v. Tebbitts, 91 U.S. 252, 23 L.Ed. 320; Nesbit v. Frederick Snare Corp., 68 App.D.C. 263, 96 F.2d 535, certiorari denied 59 S. Ct. 67, 83 L.Ed. 9 Gesellschaft Fur......
-
Herrick v. Barzee
...are to be performed before Congress. Such a case comes within the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule. Wright v. Tebbitts, 91 U.S. 252, 23 L.Ed. 320; Stanton v. Embrey, supra; Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 42, 3 S.Ct. 441, 28 L.Ed. 64; Brown v. Brown, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 533; Nutt v. Knut, ......
-
Moyers v. City of Memphis
... ... were held to be lawful and valid. Wylie v. Coxe ... (1853) 15 How. (56 U. S.) 415, 14 L.Ed. 753; Wright v ... Tebbitts (1875) 91 U.S. 252, 23 L.Ed. 320; Stanton ... v. Embry (1876) 93 U.S. 548, 23 L.Ed. 983; ... [186 S.W. 110] Taylor v. Bemiss ... ...
-
Knut v. Nutt
...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 Bemis, 110 U.S.; 42; Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410; Sanborn v. Maxwell, 29 Wash. Rept., 436; O......