Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-03-19
LEGAL.
decisions OF the supreme Court OF
Tennessee, at Nashville, December
Term, 1867.

Reported for the Union and Dispatch, by S. j.
Henderson. Attorney at Law
The plantors' Bank Of Tennessee and D. Weay-
on ne. D. :. Hornberger w. =. Hume and 9TH
ers. and
J. G. Hornberger D.. Planters Bank Of Tennes-
see and others.
CONTINUED.
On the Sd day Of July, 1865, the bank
made an assignment Of all its assets to
secure. first, the holders Of the issue; sec
ondly, the creditors generally, pro rata !;
and on the 26th Of July, 1865, respondent
came to Nashville, bringing with him the
promised accounts, and demanded pay
ment. Weaver paid him $4,000. Respond
ent then asked to be released as surety
npon the attachment and injunction bonds,
which was refused. On the 9th day of
November, 1865, respondent wrote to
Weaver that he held some $50, 900 in green
backs and Planters Bank money, and de-
sired 10 be released, but set up his claim as
an attorney for fees, and claimed that this
lien was prior to the assignment; also sets
up his right TO hold the funds in his hands
until he should be released from the bonds
or unidentified Respondent then made a
visit to Nashville, had an interview with
Weaver, in which the whole matter, left
open in the foregoing correspondence, was
talked over, bat which resulted in nothing
satisfactory.
Various correspondence here ensued, as
shown in the answer and cross bill, but all
Of which relates TO the original under
standing and agreements a recapitula-
ton of the foregoing, save that in a letter
q TQrG ,,av,a,Iavlf pofg M
the amount then due him as follows:
Old account Of Hornberger & House. s 2,2O9 il
On account Of attachment bills filed be-
tween March Is. 1864, 20 March 1860 5,446 a
Account for equity cases since the
papers were handed over.-............ 36,l72 q
Account for defending cases ut law. 203s 81
Account for defending eases IN equity 100 "
Cases in Supreme Court............-...,..-, 50 a
Toinl.............................. .S52lI2 s.
Credit by amount paid and interest 5 6l66 8
s46,2l3 3,
Of which sum S3S SOS AZ arose as fees on
the new business. And in this same letter
il is suggested that by the schedule, re-
spondont would be justified in charging
the commission for suretyship for the
bank, and this would make the fee some
$4,000 more and whilethiswas no part OF
the present account, yet il would be charged
IL the foregoing sum was not paid also,
said letter suggests that the bank will have
10 pay two or more fees on many Of the
cases that after Judgments at law, bills
would have to be filed in equity, to sci
aside fraudulent conveyances, ETC., and this
would induce a duplicate charge.
To this letter Weaver replied
January II, 1866, in substance
that he would expect Hornberger
"a the attorney Of the bank to pay over all
monies as soon as collected, and all fees
should be paid on the amount thus paid
over at the time of the payment of the
same also that he (Weaver) was ready al
any time to give an obligation 10 save
respondent, or any other person, for all
security for the bank.
Here follows 4 correspondence Of severa
letters between the parties, in which eacl
proposes to stand by the contract, but eacl
disclose a Misunderstanding Of lis terms
by the other, Weaver insisting that tn,
schedule of the Clarksville bar had nothing
10 do with the contract-that il was spe
cially exempted from the operation o
these rules. Hornberger insisting that, b,
these rules, all fees were 10 be paid in adj
vance. and states that neither he nor Hous
sever dreamed that the bank wanted tn
fees on a credit" On the Doth Of Februa
nv. 1866, Weaver writes as follows:
81 shall reply briefly, but shall en-
deavor 10 be explicit and respectful. First
", then / have TO say that you did brin,
with you to Nashville, in 1864, n printed
schedule Of your GAINESVILLE bar, and tina
on that occasion we stated 10 you distinctly
and emphatically that we would not EN-
ploy an attorney for the bank and agree {,
paw him his fees 10 advance OF his collec
tions, and in nothing that we have eve
said OF written have we intended TO con
yey any other idea, etc. Hence our sur
prise when you demanded Of ma thirty o
forty thousand dollars, and subsequent,
increased il TO about sixty-two thousan,
dollars for fees, when you had not reporte,
a single collection 20 us, nor had you pal,
us one cent on any claim IN your hands
Secondly, our arrangement with You as W
understood il, Is in substance as follows vii
The bank to place all the notes, bills, etc
for collection at GAINESVILLE in your hand
as its attorney, and you 10 be paid for col
Letting and paying over the same, four pc
cent on all unlitigated cases of law, eigh
per cent. on all litigated cases at law, fou
per cent. on all unlitgated cases in equity
eight per cent. on all litigated cases i
equity, two per cent. on all unlihgated az
peals 10 the Supreme Court, four per cen
ON all litigated appeals TO Supreme Court
These are the terms on which we sur
posed we had employed YOU. They are th
terms on which we are ready and willin
- e.. L =
iections. We want no credit; wheneye
YOU report the collection Of a claim, an
pay over the same, your fees will be PAL
ia par funds ut the time. And in Telatio
TO the appeal cases in which you and other
are on the banks bonds, we refer yo
10 our previous letters. IL the ban
owes you an account previous TO our al
engagements above referred 10, make
ont. and il Mr.. House saws il is correct, "
will pay il. And now in conclusion we r,
spectfully request you 10 say whether 70
will proceed with the business Of the ban
on these terms or not. l respectfully do
cline any further controversy ON this sui
iect."
In reply on the oath Of February, lS6.
Mr.. Hornberger says that he encloses tb
account Of Hornberger y House, aud ais
his own account previous TO the arrang'
ment; asks that the money be deposited
Third National Bank, at Nashville, an
certificate enclosed says further, | wi
merely state that ! do not agree with 70
in your construction of0u contract a COZ
tract Of the charsier implied in your lett,
would be champertous, and if this was Oh
fact, and known 70 the court, bar or litigant
every suit that the bank has in court, bot
law and equity, attachments aud iuiun,
tions, and all would be dismissed, the ban
taxed with the costs, and I would /
stricken from the roll, etc, etc. This le
ter after discussing the matters Of diss
greement, concludes: 3" will merel
state that you are surely mistaken in ever
one Of your positions rs asserted in you
letter. cannot agree in a single one
them. We had better, therefore, agree
disagree, and let the courts settle all ma