Case Name: BALDWIN LAW PUB. CO. v. MOG
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1926-01-05
Citations: 10 F.2d 269
Docket Number: No. 4404
Parties: BALDWIN LAW PUB. CO. v. MOG.
Judges: Before DONAHUE, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 10
Pages: 269–271

Head Matter:
BALDWIN LAW PUB. CO. v. MOG.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 5, 1926.)
No. 4404.
Smith W. Bennett, of Columbus, Ohio, for .appellant.
Stuart R. Bolin, of Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
Forrest F. Smith, of Columbus, Ohio, in pro. per.
Before DONAHUE, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
While there is a direct conflict in the testimony material to the issues presented by these motions, nevertheless it appears by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff company authorized its counsel to enter into the agreed ment of settlement upon the terms and conditions named therein, and that substantially the only complaint made by the plaintiff through its president, Baldwin, after the decree was entered, was in reference to the fee charged by its counsel, which fee plaintiff considered excessive. This conclusion naturally follows from the testimony of the witnesses Atkinson and Hogan, to the effect that a few days after plaintiff had been notified of the settlement, and advised that the fees of its counsel would be $1,500, Baldwin, the president of the company, called at the office of Atkinson, Smith & Hogan, in the absence of Mr. Smith, and, without making any other objection to the settlement, said to Mr. Hogan, in the presence of Mr. Atkinson: "Why, Mr. Hogan, do you think I would have accepted this settlement had I known your fees were to be that size?" This testimony is not denied by the plaintiff, and was evidently believed by the District Court.
It is further contended on the part of the appellant that this agreement was wholly void, in that it contained a provision for compounding, abandoning, or agreement to abandon, a criminal prosecution already commenced. However that may be, it cannot affect the disposition of these motions. Litigants may not trifle with courts. When the court is informed that the matter in controversy has been settled and adjusted by the parties themselves, and the terms and conditions are not disclosed, the court has a right to presume that such contract of settlement is lawful.
A decree dismissing the action, made and entered at the request, and with the consent, of the parties, and upon the representations that the cause is settled and adjusted, will not be vacated merely because a dispute has later arisen between one of the litigants and his counsel as to fees; nor will the decree be vacated because the contract of settlement contains terms and provisions in violation of law. In such event, the court will leave the parties where they have placed themselves by their own illegal contract.
Eor the reasons stated, and without expressing or intending to express any opinion as to the legality or illegality of this contract of settlement, the decree of the District Court is affirmed.