The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-14
The Courts.

SIXTH DISTRICT CoURr.-The following impor.
tant decision was delivered By Judge Cooley in
this couit. Burgess Clancy vs. Joseph Llland:
The plaintiffs claim the sum of s400 from the de-
fendaDt as the stipulated fee for professional SER
vices rendered him, in resisting aud prosecuting
TO final judgment snit against one Devall in the
parish OF East Baton Rouge Ii is not denied that il
The amount of the judgment obtained is to be
taken the basis OF the rights of the plaintiffs
that the sum of s400 is correct.
The nature Of the contract between the parties
is very well defined by the following passage in q
letter of the defendant to the plaintiffs: az have
concluded 10 put my claims in your hands in the
contingent fee which you propose Of ten per cent
on all that you will collect" After the attorneys
had obtained judgment IN favor of defendant
against Deyail for the sum OF $4,000. the defendant
sold his right TO the claim upon which the judg.
ment in his favor is predicsted for the sum of
$1,000. His defense is that, having realized only
$1,000, the commissions at ten per cent. must be
calculated on that sum and not on the amount of
the judgment. Such defense is totally unfounded
II law justice or the general understanding of the
profession with respect to remuneration for their
professional services. The plaintiffs were entitled
TO ten per cent on sll they could realize. A con-
tract OF such nature placed the claims of the de-
fendsnt against his debtor entirely under the con-
trol Of bis attorneys After such an agreement the
law imposed upon defendant the duty TO do moth
ing which might in the least prejudice the contn-
gent II "a OF his attorneys. If, by the CREDITORS
own act The collection Of the full amount of the
claim is prevented he becomes himself liable TO
the full amount Of commission agreed to be paid
ss contingent fee unless he can prove by satis-
factory testimony that IL would have been Impos-
eible for the attorneys to collect any more. In
this case no such proof has been sdduced. The
distinction which his counsel attempts to make,
that LEsDde did not sell the note, but merely the
right TO Prosecute the indorsers, Burbridge Co.,
is tntensble. See case of Hilstand vs.. Labett, IL
A, 80.
The unconventional demand of defendant must
be allowed. plaintiffs made contract with de-
fendsnt to collect eertSiD claim against Daplan-
lier, for specified fee of 500.
After collecting the dividend due defendant on
this claim, they retained their fee ten per cent
on the amount collected viz $3.50. They had no
right TO do this. 1t is quite probable they made
an Improbable contract, but having made q con-
tract, they must conform 10 its stipulations.
Allowing the plaintiffs the sum OF s400, as their
fee for the case Of Devsll, and dedncting there
from the excess received by them in the Duplsn-
tier matter, viz $lS9, there remains balance of
$2ll in favor Of plaintiffs for which they are en-
titled to judgment.
FOUUTH DISTRICT CoURT.-Henry Bezou lqui.
dating commissioner, VS.. Wolf 4 Bro. This was
suit growing out OF insurance effected Ia and due
the Citizens Mutual Insurance Company of New
Orleans. now in course Of liquidation.
The case was tried before jury who rendered
the following verdict:
"NEw ORLEANS. April l3 Is69.-we the Jury
find verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the
dsfendsnt. for the sum OF 1926 80, with legal in
terest as prayed for"
This vsrdict was confirmed by the Judge.
IN the same court Henry Bezou liQuidating
commissioner. vs. p. Halpin. This was case
similar 10 the above, and also tried by jury. who
rendered q verdict for the amount claimed,
s2ls 90. The judge confirmed the verdict.