Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-03-17

Tennessee, at Nashville. December
Term, 1857.
Reported for the Union and Dispatch, by S. j
Henderson, Attorney at Law.
I'm All cases where the relation Of attorney ant
client exists and il Is desired to make turthe
professional engagements, held
lst That it is the duty of the attorney TO hay
the contract, Of there be One) clearly and def
nitely stated and understood not only in II
language but also in It's spirit, legal consequences
and practical results
2d That the means used 10 obtain the con
tract be Free not only Of fraud, actual OF con
structiye. but also Of any other unequitable con
sideration.
Sd. That every material circumstance or fac
connected with the execution of the contract
aRd calculated 10 inform the client Of his RICH
and responsibilities, be declared to him without
reservation
facts and circumstances which would reasonably
come within the knowledge, and which would
likely prevent the execution Of the contract By
the client.
5th. That he does not contract for a greater
benefit than his services are reasonably worth
with reference 20 the trouble and difficulties o.
the particular case. amount involved, either
pecuniary character or reputation personally.
9th. That the Onus shall devolve upon the at
torney TO show that the contract was free from
all fraud. undue influence and exorbitancy o.
9TH. That the attorney. having performed his
part oi the contract reasonably and with due
ekill and diligence, without regard % the re-
suit Of the litigation, shall be entitled 20 re-
cover the amount specified, provided be brings
the contract within the foregoing principles.
Sth. In the absence Of a contract, the attorney
~ entitled TO recover upon q QudntuBl meruu Tor
such labor as he shall have performed"
The Planters Bank Of Tennessee and d. Weav-
er, o.. J. q. Hornberger, W. p Hume and 9TH
ers, and
J. g. Hornberger rs. Planters Bank Of Tonnes
see and others.
This case comes from the Cbancery
Court of Montgomery county.
The original bill was filed by the Plan
ters' Bank of Tennessee and d. Weaver,
trustee against j. q. Hornberger and Will
liam Hume, and alleges in substance, that
prior to the 18th day of February, 1862,
the Planters Bank had a branch located
in the town Of Clarksville, with Presi-
dent, Cashier and Directors, who were
charged with the business and interests of
the bank at that point that said bank also
had at that point attorneys, whose business
was to advise upon all legal questions,
prosecute and defend suits in behalf of the
bank; that in the course of its business
large sums Of money became due the Branch
Bank at that point; that there had sccu-
INFLATED an Indebtedness to the bank Of
several hundred thousand dollars evil
denced by bills, notes, etc, and for a large
part Of said Indebtedness, and TO secure the
same the bank had taken and held collat-
eral securities.
That after the 18th day of February,
1862, said branch Office was discontinued
and no further appointment was made of
officers, although Hume, the former
Cashier, continued 30 act as the agent of
the bank. That upon the reorganization
Of the State government in 1865, and the
opening of the courts, il was determined 10
initiate such legal proceedings as we're
necessary TO close up and settle the affairs
of said bank, with all its debtors. That for
many years previous to 1862, the law firm
of House & Hornberger, composed of John
+. House and J. G.. Hornberger, had been
the attorneys of the bank at that point
that House had left GAINESVILLE in the
year 1862, Hornberger alone had been en-
ployed during the year 1874, TO file bills,
attaching the property Of nonresident
debtors Of the bank That in March or
April, 1865, negotiations were opened by
the principal bank at Nashville, through
ID. Weaver, Cashier, with Mr.. Hornberger
and other gentlemen Of the bar at Clarks-
Vile, with a view to ascertain what terms
Aut ndnk tbuiu nave tic INiltNAlohh Hldu6
for, and in case of the insolvency of
any of the parties, upon what terms the
claims could be reduced TO judgments
that various propositions were made, of
which one or more from said Hornberger
were submitted, and finally on the 10th of
April, 1865, Hornberge- addressed letter
TO Hume, Through whom the correspond
ence was mainly conducted) intended to be
submitted TO Weaver, which letter stated in
substance, that the bar at GAINESVILLE had
adopted a schedule or table of fees, by
which the lawyers would thereafter be gov
erned and that at the time of the adoption
Of the schedule, the privilege was given to
Hornberger alone TO make terms with the
bank for its business, az lower or different
rate from that set down in the schedule.
The bill for charges that Hornberger had
assembled the principal members of the
bar, and after comforting with them, agreed
20 modify q previous proposition, that he
had submitted, the substance OF which
modified proposition was as follows:
"For all unlitigated cases at law, four per
cent. For all litigated cases at law, eight
per cent. For all unlitigated cases in
equity, four per cent. For all litigated
cases in equity, eight per cent. For all
unlitigated appeals 10 the Supreme Court,
two per cent For all litigated appeals to
the Supreme Court, four per cent
The bill charges further that said propo-
sition was part Of letter, and that said
letter contained also the following "How-
ever, such paper as the bank may regard
as insolvent, am, If not litigated, willing
TO reduce TO judgment ior,one per cent or
for nothing. My opinion, from the slight |
examination / gave the claims Of the |
bank, soon after my return from
Nashville, is that there are very |
few, if any, that may be regarded as
insolvent, though some Of il will require |
vigilance and attention. The very fact |
YOU and the bank are so anxious for me 10 |
have the business, (the whole Of it you say |
and the fact that no other attorney is /
privileged 10 defect from the schedule in
duoes me 10 put my fees even lower than /
they should be-" Said bill further charges
that under the circumstances described in /
said letter, the bank, through its Cashier
(Weaver) accepted Hornberger's PROPOSE
ton. and all the bills and notes, or other
evidences Of debt belonging TO the Bank at
GAINESVILLE, which we're not already in his
hands, we're given over TO him, whose
Judgment and discretion were entirely /
trusted in the matter Of suits, etc. That
and its officers we're az Nash
willie. and knew bnt little about the condi-
ton Of the debtors and had most implicit
confidence in defendant, who had so long
been and was then its attorney, and no
distinction was made in the papers turned
over. determining what was or not solvent.
Said bill further alleges that in the
month of July, 1865, the bank executed TO
Weaver, as trustee, general assignment of
al its property for the benefit of its
creditors, and that Hornberger, who had IN
The meantime brought suits upon nearly
ali the paper placed in his hands, and had
collected and RENTED part of the money
refused TO pay over 70 Weaver
any other sums in his hands, claiming q
lein as an attorney upon the same, and
also general lein upon all the notes for