The Portland daily press., 1886-04-05
a QUESTION OF LAWYERS FEES
An Interesting Decision in the U. S.
Circuit Court Upon a Test Case.

Judge Webb in the United States Circuit
Court in Boston, Friday, filed an opinion in
a test case concerning the rights of lawyers
to charge fees in each of a great number of
similar cases. The action is the noted one
of the Celluloid Manufacturing Company
vs. Alfred D. Chandler, and it is case
which attorneys have watched with great
interest and has been tried in the court
here. The Celluloid Company made and
sold to dentists compound used for setting
artificial teeth. The company offered to de-
fend any dentists who might be sued for
infringing the Goodyear Vulcanite Com
pany's patents for similar composition on
account of their using the celluloid article.
Some 164 such suits were brought against
dentists in Maine, New Hampshire and Mas
sachusetts, and Mr.. Chandler acted as local
counsel for the. Celluloid Company in look
ING after the cases. He did not prepare the
answers. the evidence or the arguments, but
kept watch of the steps taken by the COM
plainants, and was in constant correspond
ence with the leading counsel and with the
dentists who were sued. Oniy one 9eu Oh .Sa. tne |.
the use of celluloid was not an infringement
of the vulcanite patent. Arguments which
followed on the question of costs IN various
cases were participated In by MT. Cnandler,
and the taxation was attended to by MIN.
Costs were recovered in ia cases, amount
ing exclusive of officers and witness lees, TO
S4,6627 20, and this sum was collected by MI
Chandler.
Tne Celluloid Company brings this action
to collect this amount from Mr.. Chandler.
The latter's bill for services in 164 cases in
Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont was
$6,OO0 with sundry expenses OF $22S.S2. He
credits the amount collected for costs, 81,
662.70, and cash received, $500; claiming a
balance due of s., 1,06612.
The first position of the defendant is that
the docket fee (S20 on each CASE is expressly
given the solicitor by sections 1913 and
824 of the Revised Statutes. Upon this point
the court decides in substance that the tax
| able costs in case belong to the party OBJ
tanning judgment and not to his attorney.
| The attorney, however, has lien upon it.
| The court says futher: "a usage is claimed
| that docket fees and fees allowed for travel
and attendance shall be taken and treated
| by the solicitor as his own. Such usage is
testified to by so many gentlemen of the
| that there can be NO doubt that the practice
| in the districts where these suits were car
| ried on is very largely in conformity with
| it, But on the other hand witnesses of
| equal credit and opportunity to know have
| testified that they are not aware OF any such
invariable usage. This usage, too, if it were
| fully proved, does not appear to prevail gen.
orally, but, so far as the evidence in this
case shows, is confined to few States. II
is not shown. to exist in the community
where the plaintiff belongs. Under this
state of facts, the plaintiff cannot be held
bound by any such usage as invoked by the
defendant"
In considering the question whether Mr..
| Chandler's bill was reasonable, the court
says: ''Mr. Chandler became connected with
1854 cases. Each was distinct from all the
others. In each vigilance and care were re-
quired by him. In 124 of these cases costs
were collected amounting to the large sum de-
manded in this action. But these causes
must be looked at distributively, and not
collectively, to. determine the reason
able compensation of the solicitor.
The amount charged is equivalent to $36.64
for each case. The total charged above the
costs collected would be 1884 for each case ;
and if the taxable cost collected be assumed
| to be charged only in the 124 cases in which
| costs were recovered they would then stand
| as contingent fees in prevailing defences, OF
| $3983 per case, giving the solicitor for each
| case where his client was successful $49S7,
| and in the unsuccessful cases but 9.84, and
the whole, with the exception of less than
| So per case, drawn from the purse of the
adverse party. Whatever may be the rule
for distributing these costs or the charge
made, the compensation claimed cannot be
considered unreasonable or excessive, and
| the plaintiff cannot recover anything in this
action. Judgment for the defendant.