Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1853-03-02
From the Baltimore American Feb


From the Baltimore American. Feb Is
VIZ. MARSHALL'S CLAM AGAINST TIL
BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD
COMPANY.
notice in the New Y ork Herald of the clai
of Mr.. Marshall against the Baltimore and Oil
Railroad Company, giving much more impo|
lance to it than it has been received here hI
induced US to enquire at the Railroad Compd
ny's Office for Information, and we have obtain(
the following opinion of the legal counsel of III
Company. which, we think, puts the whole na||
in clear and Ineligible point of view. satisfJ
ing us that mischief rather than anything else,
at the foundation of the present movement:
BALTIMORE, Feb. 7, 1853. |
THOMAS SWAN, Esq, President, &c.
Dear Sir.:-ln reply to your note OF yesterdd
we make the following statement
When the suit of A. J. MARSHALL against I'll
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company vi
brought in the Circuit Court here, decaratid|
was filed by Mr.. H. w. Davis. setting forth ID
plaintif's claim at length. Subsequently, an
sometime before the trial, Mr.. William Scblsj
Mr.. Davis colleague, proposed that, instead
trying the case with possibility OF being involve
in controversy about the forms of pleading, d
errors of pleading should be waived, and eith{
side permitted to offer evidence of any matt
which would be admissible under any state
the peadings, and that where special matter W
relied on, notices thereofshould be mutually give
Under the agreement to this effect, which wl
entered into, tn defendants council gave notid
of the following defences:
l. That tie agreement sought to be enterce ed b
the plaintiff, admitting his ability to make it o,
to the full extent of his pretensions, was an agre
ment contrary to the policy of the law, arj
which could not be sustained.
2. That admitting said agreement to be a vail
one VIII CHI the Courts would enforce, yet til
plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because il
failed to accomplish the object for which it wdE
entered into.
2. That the law of Virginia, which was ac|
copied by the defendants after it had been mod
fed by the waiver of the city of Wheeling, (
mentioned in the plaintiffs notice, was not ol
tanned through the efforts of the plaintiff, an
furnished him with no ground for his prese
claim.
4. That there was final settlement betwee|
the plaintiff and the defendants after the passag
of the Virginia law, which concluded him in Id
behalf.
The last ground of DEF ence was not pressed ID
the argument. 1t had been taken on the strength
of note from Mr.. Marshall to Mr.. NJ Lane id
which he regretted that his exertions had sffecte|
so little good. and suggested that six hundrs
dollars should be divided in the proportions indi
Gated by him among three OF his agents, which
was done and his receipt taken; sit being undel J
stood that this voluntary payment was not Il
warrant any further contribution for past servicol
or to imply any consent on the part Of the Com
pany to any future contract or engagement for|
services thereafter
In opening the case to the jury, Mr.. DaviI
placed in strong relief the antagonism of the Raj =
road Company and Wheeling in the contest be|
fore the Legislature and in the defendant
opening it was insisted that it was the Iav
OF Wheeling. and not the law advocated by
MIR. Marshall and his friends. that had passed
and that he was therefore in point of fact claim
ing compensation for failure.
In the course of the trial, Mr.. Davis was stop
ped by the Court as he was about to offer, az Nj
understood, evidence as to the nature of the mean
and influences employed by Mr.. Marshall befor@
the Legislature, with IL view to rebuff any char
ges or differences of improper conduct on his part
the Chief Justice intinating that it not to b
supposed the Legislature had been deceived O
imposed upon, or that the law when passed wa
tainted by any thing that had taken place, prsvi
viously At the same time the defendants
council took occasion to disclaim publicly ant
most emphatcally all intention of charging Mr.
Marshall, or his friends, with conduct toward
the Legislature or any of its members, that wa
at all improper or unbecoming.
In arguing the instructions to the Jury respec
lively asked for, the main questions were
Whether the contract was void against publ
policy; and 2. AS to the merits of Mr.. Marshall
claim, admitting the contract to be valid one.-
When the Chief Justice delivered his opinion
both OF these questions were reasoned, and bot
of them determined in the defendants favor
But although the Chief Justice decided that tn
contract, if the facts upon which the objections
it rested were found by the jury was void
against public policy, yet, he said that it was un
necessary to send the case to the jury inasinucl
as, upon the merits independent of the illegal
ty of the contract, the plaintiff had no claim tina
he could sustain, 'the contingency" to usa Il
Courts own language, mot having happene(
upon which the sum of $4,000 was to be pail
to the plaintiff, and the law passed by the Ls
gislature of Virginia being different in materis
respects from the one proposed to be obtained b.
the plantif1by the agreement of February lit
l847, and the passage of which, by the terms
that contract, was made condition precedent
the payne mt of the money"
We are able to say then, which we do withou
hesitation. that Mr.. Marshall failed in his sui y
not because of the plea TINT the contract was il
valid, but because his was, on other grounds
without merit to sustain it.
1t is proper here to say, that ia preparing on
notice of the dstences should rely upon, W
included all upon which we believed the compan