The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-10-10

amount recovered collected thus making ibe value o.
~ service depend upon the responsibility incurred and
~ Success achieved I. rather mode Of estimating Lbs
value Of the labor and diligence employed than TRANSFER
Of aieres in the subect-mater Of hugAtlon Ibe Alr-
- and rasonAeness Of such oontracis have not hereto
fre bean Questioned and By sort Of reasoning can II
h. made 10 appesr that the attorney E partner 70 tAe
prosecution Of his claim and subject 10 The same AsDe'
a. tbs claimant himself II tins assumption were correct
H. attorney having been party in Interest prosecuting
oin demand FOR himself and his Client would be liable
as partner only 20 pay the part received ~ hise
m also thar received BIZ any other party interested VIII
him This would make each Of the attorneys IN TINS case
lale for the whole u The award without regard
10 the exact amount received By hinl
Az 10 the seoOnd posiuonto wit that tr -tFioes
.odered prior 70 The award and prosecution OF TINS
very claim which turns 70 be frandulentlt lAst DC
admitted that if The money had not oee a taA. IAa
IN consideration OF the services rendered the attorneys ana
gents could not have claimed the meat even ier uhe
49, But il Is equally undeniable that the services OF
- tt,rney Who acts In good faith gnoranty lrosect-
49, - s,rred and fraudulent demand Of his client
ute A. fair and legal ground for remuneration as
- ~ service had been rendered in any other case
When therefore the money vas esAIly aNal1eu 20 ".
~ ,.8 VAS Maid over by him to his attorneys II
was pala upon consideration as good and Haia as II II
bsa f.p id 10 any other creditor upon any other con-
iaraou whatever In the case Of the Bank OF the United
Ste~ !, tie Bank Of Washington Goth Petsrxs Reports
n ~ where money had been paid upon an erroneous aag
neut which was Afterwards reversed though II hAe beeA
aisrsed Of payment Of Anecedent ceDt anu parity IL
o. to Thomas swan and Walter Jones il was decided
that te only party liable the plaintiff IN the Original
Indictment Ii does not TO have entered INTO tbe
news fees although their services were rendered ~ pfoeu
ring The judgment which was afterwards ahnuiled
When negotiable paper Is transferred out Of the due
course OF trade il subject TO the equities existing bet~e
The original parties because the party taking paper under
Fuch ercumstanees is bound 70 inquire and Is presumed
70 be on bis guard But even in this case Afie pay
OF the note though may have been thoroughly iraudn-
lent il would hardly be conended that the makers equity
could be enforced against the innocent assignee who had
fairly obtained his money
services ia this case rendered in the prosecution Of
this claim itself and before the award was actually made
The work having been by the supposton fairly and hon
eyty done and the Of compensation being ia ac-
cordanes with the usage in such cases paid over into the
hands Of the parties in pursuance Of the laws and treaties
az the United States and Hpon the award Of competent
tribunal tie established principles OF Jurisprudence would
seem 10 rendera recovery not within the range OF p-oa-
biy The moral fropGiety Of retaining large sums OF
money obtained by means Of such frauds these
bbt Is question wholly different from that OF strict legal
right Il Is with the latter only that the committee feel
themselves authorized deal Nevertheless they deem il
moi improper TO say in this eonnexHn that they have less
hesitation in recommending suits against these parties who
nav possibly be technically liable because they believe
il would neither be conscientious honorable for them
TO retain the money although the law as IL stands, may
enable them 10 hold it
For the purpose Of reaching similar in the future
srd order make agents and attorneys vigant and IN
some degree responsible for the honesty Of their principals
s committee ask leave to report general bill making al
such parties liable TO refund money received by them III
prosecution Of such claims although they may not be cog
nizant Of the frauds committed
The liability az the parties who purchased onfourth OF
The Gardiner claim procuring assignment and an award
in NAME Of W W Coreoran, would 10 stand upon
rrinces somewhat different from those which govern
The Of attorneys receiving their ices Thomas Corwn
and Robert G. Corwn being at the time employed as the
attorneys of DR. Gardiner purchased onefoth Of h pre-
tended claim for the Of TWENTY-FIVE thousand nFe nm
dred dollars the avowed object being furnish the
necessary to procure testimony and make out the case
There can be little doubt that al law ihs would
be case oharpey and the contract would not be sus
aimed hy the courts IT rlay be further alleged that the
consideration paid wholly Inadequate being less than
eneourth the amount Of the part purchased There il
reason To eere thai 1T this early day the parties knees
very aeTiy what tbs award Of the commissioners would
he ANA with this knowledge the purchase OF 100000 for
s22 500 in the Of valid csimy would be such
transaction would carry ts face the evidence of rand
and imposition But this fraud If IL existed between
the parties themselves and is doubtful whether in this
view any one but DR. Gardiner could take aGvar,t@DA -
ana lnasmucn as the whole Of Dr. Gardeners claim was
fcttiors il point Of fact and had existence whatever it
lauaot be sail hat tE purchase Fas imposition upon
kim Nevertheless the circumstances of the purchase
would 70 be sach ought to have excited suspicion
ard vigilance the part OF those making IL The holder OF
honest claim could scarcely be expected to make 80 great
sacrifice End any ezgeney rendered II necessary s at
trney should be the last 10 take advantage Of his
1t may be doubtful whether upon these grounds
the assigned Thomas and Robert G. Corwin car
be recovered But there still another principle not de-
pending upon The good faith Of the parties TO the contract
q sale but going % The Yry sutslAnee OF the thing sold
fourth Of heions claim which to be supported and
which afterwards made oct BY fraud and perjury.
loud they ute 10 anything which br Gardiner
hm9efdd possess If they could not then after
The award they could stand ant better position than
Dr. Gardiner himself If thev had purchased part Of the
sEard after Sd been made in favor of DIR tsrainer
after had assumed l-gal ezisEnceaDa the money had
been paid them upon such purchase made in good faith
probable the could be recovered from them
But tev pAced themselves Of this purchase
IN the shoes Of DR. Gardiner The Awrd made direct
N = tEI, their agent ana lnasulch AZ the award
subject be anuulled for fraud and the money recovered
the proceedings can only be against the parties for whose
benefit the award made and the money applied II
they honest the purchase of this claim IS adj
mt1ed they have been nevertheless their ns-
fortune expeud their money for that which had valid
existence The sArd made though considered IN the
light OF Judgment help their for the Judg-
meat itself Ttafed hy fraud and fayoided at ali must be
avoided those who parties IN interest Il would
seem therefore that Thomas and Robert g. CDrwin are
responsible for the OF @l076 awarded 20 W W
CororRn for their benefit and by him paid over TO them
u Of all the Circumstances Of these extraordinary
cases the committee are Of opinion that public justice
qres effort the part Of The United States 20 enforce
the liability Of oil the parties who may BIZ any possibility
be ae 70 refund The money unJusy and fanduienty
Anstracied from the treasury The committee therefore
report resolution requesting the President TO cause the
necessary proceedings 10 be Instituted
Rcsosd That the President he requested to institute
Proceedings in law equity against all such agents. attor-
neS aad couederates may have assisted IN prosecuting
the claims o. George A. Gardner and John r. Mears
either Of em before the board Of commissioners appointed
Under The treaty Of Guadalupe Haalgo FOR the adjudication
o. claims Mexico r order test their liability 10 refund
nf amoants paid them agents attorneys confederai
m assgnees out q the awards made ~ Tie sd epaa1s-
aonsrs to said Gardner and MearS
the analogous to those cited in kents Comen-
1es vol g. and in St0rys Partnership, ~ ei
Which part q profits is paid wages, rents agent
partner.