Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-30

NASHVILLE TENNESSEE, DECEMBER TERN, IS 81.
rH9sAs n ooIDwELI, ATroHSEY GESlRAL AND HEroKTEn
THE PLANTERS BANK OF TENNESSEE AND D.
WEAVER e. J. G. HoRNBERGER, W. P HUME,
ET Al, AND J. q. H0RNBERGER Is. PLAN
TERS BANK OF TENNESSEE EFT. AL.
This case comes from the OhAneory Court Of Mont
ggmsry county.
The original bin was filed by the Planters Bank Of
Tennessee and D. Weaver trustee, against J. g Horn
berger and William P. Hume, and alleges 10 substance
that prior to the 18th day OF February 1852 the Plan
ters Bank had branch located in the town Of Clarks
vile, with President Cashier and Directory, who were
charged with the business and interests Of the bank at
that poin that said bank also had at that point aor
neys whose business te advise upon all legal ques
TONS prosecute and defend suits in behalf the bank
that il the Of its business large Of money
became due the Branch Bank at that point that there
bad accumulated indebtedness to the bank Of sew
eal hundred thousand dsars, evidenced by bills notes.
etc, and for large part Of said Indebtedness and
secure the same, the bank had taken and held cola
terial securities
That after the 18th Of February, 1862 said branch
Office discontinued, and no further appointment
made Of officers, although Hume, the former Cash
eT continued 70 act the agent of the bank. That
upon the Reorganization. Of the State government in
1862 and the opening Ct the courts, it determB-
ed TO initiate such legal proceedings
~ close up and settle the affairs Of said bank with
al its debtors That for many years previous to 1862
the law firm Of House Hornberger, composed Of
John T. House and J. q. HoTnberger had been the
attorneys Of the bank at that point; that House had
ClarksVtie the 500, HornbeTEcr alone had
been employed during the year 1864, to file bills
taching the property Of few Of the nonresident
debtors Of the bank That in March April, 1865,
negotiations were opened by the principal bank at
Nashville through b. Weaver Cashier, with Mr. Horn
berger and other gentlemen Of the bar at Clarksyille
with view to ascertain what terms the bank could
have the collections made for, and in of the in
sovsncy Of any Of the parties upon what terms the
claims could be reduced to judgments that various
propositions made Of which from
said HOrnbeTger submitted and finally, the 10th
OF HOruberper a q
through whom the correspondence mainly conduct
cd intended to be submitted 70 Weaver which letter
stated in substance, that the bar at GAINESVILLE had
adopted schedule Of table Of fees by which the lawyers
would thereafter be governed and that the time Of the
adoption Of this schedule, the privilege given to
HOrnberger alone to make terms with the bank for lite
business a. lower different rne from that set Down
in the schedule The bill further charges that HoEaber
ser had assembled the principal members of the bar and
after consultation with them agreed to modify previous
proposition, that be had submitted, the substance Of
which modified proposition was a follows:
For all unlitgated at law, four per cent For
all Irrigated cases ct law, eight per cent. For all unh
gated cased in equity, four per cent For all iugated
in equity eight per cent For all unlitigated sp
peals to the Supreme Court per cent For all liti-
gated appeals 10 the Supreme Court, four per cont"
The bill charges further that said proposition was
part Of letter aud that said letor contained also the
aHoweyer, such paper as the bank may regard as in
solvent am If not tgated willing to reduce to judg-
ment for ono per cent for nothing. My opinion, from
the slight examination gave the claims OF tae pank'
soon after my return from Nashville is that there are
very few III any that may be regarded - lnsoiVent'
though some eff il will require vigilance and attention
The very fact you and the bank anxious for me TO
have the business he whole of it, you say and the
fact that other attorney privileged TO deect Iro
the schedule induces 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 Woaver) accepted Hornbegers pro
position and all the bills and notes, or other eyldences
Of debt belonging to the bank at Carksve which were
not already his hands, given over 70 NM whose
Judgment and discretion entirely trusted N the mat
ter of suits etc That complainant and its ocers were
AT Nashville and know but little about the condition Oh
the debtors and had most implicit confidence ~ uoe
dant, who had so long been ana was tnen ,S @
and no distinction made IN the papers '"iN0 WIZ
determining what was or NOT solvent; ii = NV
1885, the bank executed to Weaver a. Trustee
assignment Of all property Cor the 6enent OF It's erei
tors and that Hornberger, who had IN The meantime
brought suits upon nearly all the paper placed III als
hands and had collected and RENTED part Oh the
s rolleeted refused to pay to Weaver any other
sums in his hands, claiming lien as an attorney upon
The same aud also general lien upon al the nOs lUI
All fees due him. or thereafter come to be due him Tor all
ctions made or to be made under the contract mat
Weaver admitted his right TO retain commissions upon
the sums collected in the particular cases put uenea m
b 10 retain for other oases and particularly when the
sces we're not rendered also The deiendat claimed the
light 10 hold all moneys then in his hands OF ihai Wouo
como his hands, TO idemniiy himself a. inc surety ~
the bank for all liabilities he had assumed as security
anon number Of prosecutions and attachment bones
which he had executed in bringing the suits Said bill
further charges that correspondence between the par
o her, spr1ne up which indicated great difference in
is practical results in the construction each gave the
contract
in 1884 amounting 10 about hundred thousand dol
lars that on these he had brought suit IN Sb4 against
some of the parties and had again in 1855 brought other
suit against these other parties, upon the same
claim and that he now claims the right TO charge CON-
missions 10 each and every CASE, the demands were
different aud distinct when collateras were in his hands
He also claimed the right 10 charge commissions, not
only upon the principal debts but also upon the oola
erals that commissions made out upon this basis IN
many cases, would amount to onehaf or two-thrds 81
the whole debt while the parties wholly insolveu
and with no property subject TO execution That SAID
correspondence showed further difference towit; That
Hornberger claimed and still claims to have all fees
paid in advance. That the hank its officers do not
know what sums have been collected, nor from whom
these collectors made. That Hernberger had been
paid some $1,000 before the differences grew up and
that Of HOTnbeger letters dated March 18th, 1856
shows that he had Coecte5 up 10 hSt date, $50 1896
nearly al Of which ia the notes Ct the bank That
Hornberger claims due him for moneys collected il
Is646566 about S55OO0 and also csim that be should
Re paid in national currency that there viii not be col
lscted Of the whole amount turned over TO him, more
than S5OOOO and the greatcrpart Of this viii have e
be eventually collected by bills in chancery, fled to Sc
aside conveyances made by parties who or will b
sued al law that the Smiths owe the bank aggregate
debt Of about S275000 evidenced by various notes ana
bills Of their different firms that actions at law hav
been brought upon these Of them also suits II
equity, and the viii be higated in both courts
that when judgments obtained if ever bills viii hav
TO be filed to set aside conveyauces. which viii be con
tested and that part only finally collected is feare'
hat II defendant allowed fees upon the construction
Of the contract claimed il would consume the ontr
amount, the double commissions upon said litigation
would swell his fees beyond any conception the bank
rs officers had at the time the same was entered into
aud was not in accordance with fair construction o
the contract
That the bank has always been willing to pay
teas0naoe eonpsnsaon for bis services and, aetaate
y TINS ieeing, did heretofore pay him for bis services
iooi more Than $1,000 and finally, short time oe,oI
me OIL was Med, rendered him $4,000 more IN ia
sHaeryices rendered under the contract ana agree
ufther TO release him Of all liability bonds as sure
10 Jus behalf aud free him Of al charges and resi-
ny and labor the attorney of the bank That inc os
ehaant refusing TO accept, thcreupon he was nothsu
to' no longer as the attorney Of the bank ana % '9
over % The agent Of the bank all the notes, ete ID ~
hands as vel as moneys. That defendant refused
yield bf position attorney, otherwise comply WI
The demands Of the notice but that he stu hois he ia
per and acts the attorney Of the bank II al eases
~ court, and collects money such.
The bill prays discovery from Hornpeigeis VI :
moneys he has collected, Of whom, and Nnen' a." =
KIND, and where Il is KEPT, and that be be ordered " ~
liver up, together with all evidences Of aeoI e.
that no be paid for all services redered 70 me Gay ~ p
notified TO acting the attorney OF lhe DanAi -
for ali ether and further and proper relei MT
The schedule Of fees which is made an eAhD.. p
i0llOWS: General retainer not less than s3O Oouna
and advice IN every instance not less than -. Two
the fr 81 600 per cent. on the next Ss'OO
and onehalf per cont tie next s5se9o and one oef
per cent ea an sddonal sums provided, the fec Fa'
not exceed Slfo counHe and advice one year not e