The National tribune., 1902-11-13

the law provides, out of the pension al
lowed to the claimant, that the formers
title to the fee is still dependent upon the
latters title to pension.
DIT is not thought that this conclusion is
warranted unless it is assumed that under
the pension laws an attorney is co-sharer
with his client in the pension allowed in
claim. The pension laws, it is true, inn
pose conditions with respect to the amount
and the method of making payment of fees
in pension claims, viz, that the amount
shall not exceed $40 or S25, as the case
may be, and that the fee shall be paid by
the Commissioner of Pensions; but by
these provisions no pensiOnable rights are
conferred upon attorneys, nor has it ever
been held by the Department that an at
torney is a co-sharer with the claimant in
the latter's pension. On the contrary, it
was held, in substance and effect, in case
of Harvey Harrington az p. D., 109), that
in contemplation of law the entire pension
allowed in claim is paid to the claimant,
and that as his agent the Commissioner of
Pensions pays the fee to an attorney Tor
services rendered.
'.In fact, the conditions imposed by the
pension laws relative to the amount and
the method of making payment of fees in
pension claims are limitations upon the
common-law rights of claimants and at
torneys to make contracts with respect to
tnOSe matters. LIE dU1Ouut pdlu 10 du
attorney is paid to him by the Commits
sioner of Pensions not as pension granted
by an Act of Congress, but as fee for
services rendered, and pursuant to the
terms OF q contract such as he and the
claimant are permitted to enter into under
| the pension laws. 1t is clear that the title
of an attorney and claimant to the
money which they respectively receive as
| fee and pension is founded on entirely diff
| a "a W
under which claimant derives title to
money paid him as pension are in no way
applicable to the attorneys title to the
| money paid to him as a fee. 1t is thought
that the title of an attorney to fee paid
to him through the Commissioner of Pen
siOns rests upon the same grounds as does
the title of any other creditor of the claim
ant to money paid directly to him on in
debtedness by the claimant out of the pen.
sion N oney which he has received. 1t has
4 never .een considered that the Govern
ment AS any right to recover In the latter
instai e from the creditor the amount paid
him by the claimant, though the money
paid was procured from the Government
through the prosecution of a fraudulent
claim for pension, and it is not apparent
upon what legal grounds it can recover the
fee paid to the attorney by the claimant
for services rendered although the fee was
paid through the agency of the Commits
sioner OF PENSIONS as the law directs. II
is not thought that the method of pay.
ment of fee distinguishes the title of the
attorney to the fee paid to him from the
title of any other person to whom money
is paid by the claimant on Indebtedness
and out of the pension money received
and there is no provision contained in the
pension laws which is authority for rcduir
ing an attorney to refund fee paid Il
him for services rendered in a claim fol
pension, for the reason alone that hi.
client had no title to the pension allowed
Accordingly the action of the Bureau j.
reversed, and the decision of the Depart
ment in the case of Elizabeth Striggon
supra, is oyerruled.
''As there is no suggestion that this ap
pellant has nny knowledge that the sol
dier's claim under the general law wa.
fraudulent, the question will not be dis
cnssed as to what action would be proper
if he had such knowledge wien lie wa.
prosecuting said claim"