Court Opinion

ID: 8630109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:36:16.876696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:44.367929
License: Public Domain

TANEY, Circuit Justice.
This being an action at law upon a bond, the questions which arise upon the case stated, must be decided according to the rules at common law, and without reference to the relief which the defendant might obtain in a court of equity.
1. We think the bond is a valid contract, and not contrary to the policy of the law; undoubtedly, any agreement to pay money, in order to obtain an appointment to a public office, would be void; but if this principle extends to the appointment of an administrator by the orphans’ court, yet it will not embrace the case before us; for the money was not to be paid to assist the party in *944procuring the appointment. He had already been selected and appointed executor by the testator, who had, unquestionably, a right to make the appointment; and the money was to be paid for the purpose of enabling him to execute the duties of his appointment, and to carry into effect the wishes and intentions of the testator.
2. Neither is the continued availab'lity of the security given, until the estate was finally settled, a condition precedent, to be performed by Chambers, before he became entitled to any part of the commissions; on the contrary, his share was to be paid to him, from time to time, as the commissions accrued and were allowed by the orphans’ court, and it was not to wait for the final settlement, before it became due and payable. ...
3. The premium paid to the new surety, when additional security was required by the court, is not a legal set-off in this action. Chambers did not contract to furnish it, if called for; nor make any contract, express or implied, to reimburse the amount paid by the defendant And, sitting in a court of law, we cannot apportion the premium contracted to be paid to Chambers, upon the ground that there has been an accidental failure of a part of the consideration for which this premium was to be paid.
4. The executor had, undoubtedly, a right to employ counsel, and there is no evidence to show that the fee paid was unreasonable or unusually high. It is, therefore, a legal credit against the present claim, in proportion to the share of the commissions to which Chambers is entitled.
5. The agreement between Chambers and Stillinger, as to the commissions in the lifetime of the testator’s widow, is not a condition annexed to the bond. It is not endorsed upon the'bond delivered to Chambars, but is a separate instrument, and upon the face of it, was executed after the bond, although upon the same day; for it refers to certain rights, which Chambers had acquired upon the bond, and agrees to release them. And as this instrument is not under seal, it cannot operate as a release or defeasance.
Undoubtedly, it would be enforced in a court of equity; and, upon a proceeding there, the question would also be open as to the deduction proper to be made on account of the new security required by the court; and whether, upon principles of equity, Chambers was entitled to any share of the commissions which accrued after his name had ceased to be available as a surety, and his credit become insufficient to protect the executor in the possession of his letters testamentary.
But upon the case stated we think the defendant has no defence at law, and therefore direct the Judgment to be entered on the verdict, with interest until paid, deducting first the one-half of the counsel fee. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.