Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-20
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
prGEsTs OF OPINIONS HANDED
powx LAST THURSDAY.
rec. Of Courscl-Hcc cGnisnncc De-
f..tivc-Powcrs of Municipal Cor
~o,ion.-Whrn statute Higgins to
u,o-othcr Important Cases.

Following are dlsests of opinions OF
a., court 40 Wyihevile on the 18th in
slant: y
,osn Howard vs. First National Bank.
cseros,on. S. c. Circuit Cour, OF Hen
roo county Reversed. opinion by
fudge Keith. y.
Iohn Howard and the firm OF Marshall
e r.sscr attorneys at lew. fled bin in
a. cbanccry Court of the city OF Rich
,o,-f IN the name OF W. w. Glenn, a
.-.l.,or OF .he national Express and
,r-,r.-or,aton Company. suing on be-
80 ~ themselves and all other creai-
,.-. Of The said company who might be-
...., narties 10 the suit and contribute
=, che expenses thereof. The object OF
49,. sniff WAS TO wind up the affairs OF
nae National ExI reSs and Transports
,,on Company. collect lts assets, and pay
us debts 10 proved 10 be a tedious ans
s,ei.ru NugatiOn which extended through
r..- series OF years. found its way inio
a., ..urts OF many states. and in it's
S..euet called for The exercise of dill
r.r.e activity. energy, Skill and learn
s gnan the part OF counsel. which re-
,...i In bringing into court very large
,m OF money Tor distribution. John
howard and Marshall & Fisher were the
.,.,r.l chiefly instrumental In achieving
r..e results. They earned, and have
,....ve4. large sums o. money Is com
r.-ssron for their services.
p. January. lsSs. the First National
rank II Charleston. 5. c., by its coln-
nj Holm M Glenn, filed its petition,
s..f.nr that 10 was creditor Of the de-
PENDANT company. and asking that II
r.irrf be- made "a party in the suit ana
,.acel upon an equal footing with the
othsr creditors OF the same class with
g..f Us claim was allowed. and Il has
..-.tvs4 several instruments upon its
an and hy q decree OF April. 1885. the
-,.-t directed the further sum Of Sl22S&
~ .. raIa 10 Il. Thereupon, John How
r-l meI his petition. in which he states
RI detail the facts. and asks that the
-.grr forbid the payment under the de-
--.. inst recited. until his rights could
=. incurred into and just compensation
~ 1ecrced to him 90 be paid by the Bank
,f Charleston for services as counsel
rendered In the cause OF which the bank
,as taken, anl is attempting TO take, the
benefit.
To this petition the bank filed its an
Iper. and the cause coming on 10 be
,e.rI upon the petition. the answer and
D statement OF John Howard filed by
,o.so4t 20 be read as his deposition. the
court dissolved the injunction and dis
missed The petition.
Held: That tho petition should not
save been dismissed. IL is true that the
First National Bank Of Charleston was
-errosented by counsel. but it came into
frstrffu Of irfI4f -
and protracted litigation. a fund had
Seen created in which It had a right
% Participate. 1t had a right. of course
.o select it's own counsel, but the only
service rendered by the counsel who filed
n petition was 10 prove a demand
which could never have been the sub
feet Of serious controversy. The service,
which required a high order Of profess
sIoral skill. had already been rendered
% the creation Of the fund; It's Gistribu-
ton was free from difficulty. When the
bank came into the cause by petition,
% not only found a fund ready for dis
tribution, but IL found It's right pro-
tested against the statute Of limitations
which would have otherwise been fatal,
hv the labor OF those who had filed the
original bill and conducted the ltiga-
ton down 10 that time. In common fair
ness ~ ought TO be required TO pay its
fust proportion Of the compensation to
which those who rendered TO IL these
important services are entitled. The
court holds that the Circuit Court should
have granted an order OF reference to a
commissioner 10 enquire and report what,
under the circumstances of the case.
would be a fair compensation for the
services rendered by him and of which
the appellee has received the benefit.
The court Is also OF opinion that the
failure OF Marshall & Fisher TO assert
any claim cannot have the effect Of
charging the compensation Of the petit
toner. He should be paid for what
81 has done; not for what has been done
by others who decline 10 make any fur
them claim for remuneration.
RECOGNIZANCE DEFECTIVE.
Commonwealth We. Fulks. Circuit
Court. Russell county. Affirmed. Opin-
ion by Judge Keith. =.
Fl'ks was Indicted in the County
Court Of Wise county. for murder. The
cause was continued from time to time
ana at the December term of the County
Court 1893, Fulks entered into recog-
n'z1nce with certain sureties I'm the PEN
atty OF 5000. payable 10 the Common
wealth under the condition that he
should appear az the next term Of the
said court and not depart therefrom
without leave. in which event the obi
cation was 70 be void, otherwise 10 re-