St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-14
FEDERAL COURT.
Decisions Handed Down by the
Appeals Court

Decisions Handed Down by the
Appeals Court.
Opinions were handed down in the U.
S. circuit court of appeals yesterday in
the following cases:
The Farmers and: Bank of
Clay Center, Kansas, V. John Farwell
ct al. Appeal from the circuit court of
the United States for the district of
Kansas. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Sanborn.
Sylla5us-1. A bank has a lien on
the moneys deposited with it 70 secure
the overdue Indebtedness of Its depos-
itor to the bank, and may at once ap-
ply such moneys to its payment.
q This lien does not attach to
moneys held by the depositor III fidu-
ciary capacity and deposited in the bank
in his own name, but the beneficial
owner may recover such funds of the
negligence OIL his part.
8. An essential ele ment of such an
equitable estoppel as will defeat legal
title is a willful intent to deceive or
such gross negligence as is tantamount
thereto. 1t is the province of court of
equity to correct mistakes, not to en-
force them.
4. That the assignees of chooses in
action lin this case insurance policies in
suit gave no notice OF their assignment
to a bank that had become and subse-
quently continued to be a creditor of
their aSsignor without their knowledge,
and after the assignment gave further
credit to the aSSignor without notice of
the assignment, does not constitute
such fraud or negligence on the part of
the aSsigneeS as would estop them from
recovering from the bank the proceeds
of the chooses in action when they are
subsequently collected aud deposited in
the bank IN the name of the aSsignor
by mistake of his attorney. and with
out his knowledge or consent.
Zeb Ward, plaintiff in error, VS.. Kohn,
Baird aud Speckert. In error to the
circuit court of the United States for the
Eastern district of Arkansas. Affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Sanborn.
Syllabus-1. In view of the fact that
it is often the duty and generally the
practice of attorneys at law to render
their services without adequate compen-
sation to those who are unable to pay
their fair value, it is not error to permit
the jury to consider the wealth of the
client in fixing the compensation an at
torney deserves for professional serv-
Ices rendered, not for the purpose of en-
HANGING his fees beyond a reasonable
compensation. but to determine whether
or not the client is able to pay fair and
just compensation for the service rem
dered.
2. The wealth of the client may be
considered by the jury in fixing the
where it materially affects the amount
actually involved in The litigation in
which the service was rendered.
3. In the absence of a contract price,
the measure of what is a reasonable
compensation for the professional serv-
ices of an attorney is the amount usu-
ally obtained by attorneys OF like char
acter for similar services in the courts
where the services are rendered or in
the immediate vicinity, and the best
evidence to fix this amount is the teSti-
mOny of attorneys who know what fees
are usually obtained in that locality,
the services rendered and the profess
sional standing of the lawyer who rem
dered them.
4. Where it appears that there are
ices i'll large city where the services
are rendered, evidence that the fees
obtained by attorneys fer like services
in a city hundreds OF miles distant are
the same az Chose in the city where they