Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-30
Effects the Deed.

lieve the proof is that he at least has some
connection with that contract and that he
Is to indorse the bonds.
Effects the Deed.
"Now, altogether, 1t seems to me that not
only is the original contract champertous
not only is the arrangement by which
bonds are to be realized champertous, and
not only is that arrangement champertous
by which the parties who will have the spe-
cifc pecuniary interest in the success of
this scheme of recovering the title of this
property or recovering money in lieu of
the utle-not only does all that exist, but
IL Is already embodied in and connected
with the instrument which seeks to convey
the title.
Mr.. Armstrong for the plaintir-It is dat
ed in 1854.
The court-Long before that deed was
made this deed is made to the present
trustee, simply because OF some necessity
growing out of the condition, 1 believe, of
the former trustees. But the mere lapse of
time between the execution of the contract
in 1873 and the execution of the deed which
is now offered in evidence l suppose will
make no difference. 1t appears that that
contract in 1873 and subsequent arrange
ment in regard to issuing the bonds are
all preserved as part of the whole scheme
which is fully developed and embraced in
the deed itself.
THE only question that has been one Of
much difficulty. in my mind. is to deter
mine whether, under such circumstances,
Notwithstanding the fact that the contract
Is champertous, that it is a scheme of
speculation connected with the arrange
meEt and really embodied in the deed
whether, Notwithstanding that. it could
be claimed that, inasmuch this suit is
simply to recover the title, and inasmuch
as the defendant cannot be said to be
connected with these contracts or to be af-
fected in his connection In any way by
them-that is to say, If he had good de-
Tense before the execution of these deeds or
would have one If the deed had not been
executed and suit had been brought by the
heirs, he still has that defense and that
it is no matter OF his that the ptrties ha y
seen proper to make an arrangement salts
factory to themselves as to the proceeds of
this property or Of the money that may be
recovered by the carrying out of this
scheme.
A Well-RecORnfzed Rule.
''The rule. I think, is pretty well estab-
lshed; 1 think 1t seems to be recognized by
the text writers. and 1 judge that the
greater number Of decisions in this country
have been to the effect that, where party
makes an arrangement with his attorney
to bring an action. giving him share of
the proceeds, and does it under such cir
cumstances as that court would feel
bound to regard 1t as champertous, yet
they will not permit a defendant, when the
plaintiff brings action to recover, to in
terpose as a defense that a champertous
agreement has been made between the
plaintiff and his attorney. i think the rea
son of that is because the champertous
agreement is not before the court, and
does not enter into the issue between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The action is
upon the obligation of the defendant, what
ever it may be- and the right of the
plaintiff to recover against the defendant
is not affected by the arrangements that
the plaintiff may have made with his at
tnr ltro11 too M -
taken by the plaintiff himself whenever it
shall be sought to enforce the champertous
agreement against him.
But is that this case? Can We separate,
and can we shut our eyes to everything in
this deed except the simple portion which
operates to convey the title of the heirs OF
Samuel Blodget to the plaintiff? Can we ex-
clude everything else in the deed, and say
that there is, after excluding all that a
conveyance of the property from these heirs
to the plaintiff, and that there Is no reason