Where a contract was made with an attorney for the prosecution
of a claim against Mexico for a stipulated proportion of the amount
recovered, and services were rendered,
Page 56 U. S. 416
the death of the owner of the claim did not dissolve the
contract, but the compensation remained a lien upon the money when
recovered.
A court of equity can exercise jurisdiction over the case if a
more adequate remedy can be thus obtained than in a court of
law.
The want of jurisdiction should have been alleged in the court
below, either by plea or answer, if the defendant intended to avail
himself of it. It is too late to urge it in an appellate court,
unless it appears on the face of the proceedings.
This was a bill filed by Mr. Coxe under the circumstances stated
in the opinion of the Court.
The circuit court passed the following decree.
"
In equity. -- This cause having been set down for
hearing, by consent upon the bill, answer, general replication, and
the testimony filed in the case, and having been argued by counsel,
and having been fully and materially considered by the court, it is
thereupon, on this twenty-eighth day of April, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred any fifty-two, ordered, adjudged,
and decreed, that the averments in said bill contained are fully
established and sustained, and that complainant is justly and truly
entitled to the relief which he prays, and inasmuch as it is thus
shown and established that said respondent, as administrator of
Samuel Baldwin, did obtain an award, as averred, for the sum of
seventy-five thousand dollars, which said sum it is admitted that
he has received from the government of the United States, and that
he holds the same free and clear of all debts due by said
intestate; and it being fully shown and established that, by and
under the contract made in the lifetime of said Samuel Baldwin
between the said Samuel and said complainant, said complainant is
justly and equitably entitled to have and receive out of said fund,
so in the hands of said defendant, as administrator as aforesaid,
at the rate of five percentum on the said sum of seventy-five
thousand dollars."
"Whereupon, it is now further ordered, adjudged, and decreed,
that said defendant, as administrator as aforesaid, do forthwith
pay over to said complainant the sum of three thousand seven
hundred and fifty dollars."
"And whereas it further appears, and it is admitted, that said
award became and was payable to said defendant, as administrator as
aforesaid, on the sixteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and
fifty-one, it is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged, that said
defendant, as administrator as aforesaid, do further pay to said
complainant interest on said sum of three thousand seven hundred
and fifty dollars, to be calculated and estimated
Page 56 U. S. 417
from said 16th May, 1851, until paid, together with the costs of
this suit."
From this decree, Wylie, the administrator appealed to this
Court.
Afterwards he filed a petition to the circuit court to set aside
the decree for reasons which it is unnecessary to state, but the
court overruled the motion, from which judgment also Wylie prayed
an appeal to this Court. This is mentioned in order that the case
in
55 U. S. 14 How. 1,
may be understood.
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The complainant, Richard S. Coxe, filed his bill stating that
about the year eighteen hundred and forty-two or three, a certain
Samuel Baldwin a citizen of the United States, residing in Mexico,
had a claim against the Mexican Republic for personal outrages and
losses of property through the officers of that government. Many
similar claims were brought to the notice of the government of the
United States, to enlist its efforts for an indemnity from the
Mexican Republic; that the
Page 56 U. S. 418
complainant was employed by Doctor John Baldwin the brother of
Samuel, to prosecute his claim, and various documents and papers
connected with the same, were placed in his hands, showing the
origin and merits of the claim; that he brought it to the notice of
the government for several years, urging an indemnity. Much time
and labor were expended in this service, in written communications
and otherwise to different Secretaries of state. War against Mexico
was declared, which suspended his efforts, until a peace was
concluded in 1848, which provided for the settlement of those
claims. An act of Congress was passed, and a board of commissioners
authorized to examine and decide such claims. The board being
organized, the papers in relation to Baldwin's claim were laid
before it. That up to April, 1849, no other person acted as agent
or attorney for the claim but the complainant. He did everything
that was done in bringing the case before our government for an
indemnity. Samuel Baldwin died, and letters of administration by
the advice of the complainant, were granted to Andrew Wylie, the
defendant. The claim was allowed by the commissioners, amounting to
the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, and the complainant
believes that to his measures and arguments this allowance may be
principally attributed.
It was understood that a commission of five percent should be
allowed on the sum awarded for the services of the complainant.
That the defendant has refused to pay the compensation stated
&c.
The defendant admits that he was called upon by John Baldwin and
complainant, and at their instance he took out letters of
administration on the estate of Samuel Baldwin. The complainant was
not employed by defendant -- but supposing he had been engaged as
counsel by the widow, a memorial was prepared to be presented to
the board, setting forth the claim, by the defendant and submitted
to the complainant, which he approved, and it was used before the
board. Other documents being furnished, another memorial was
presented by the defendant.
Mr. Goix, the agent of the widow, came on from Mexico, bringing
with him the will of Samuel Baldwin which bequeathed to his wife
and children his property and appointed her executrix. Goix, being
the agent of the widow, dismissed the complainant as the attorney
in the case, after which he was not consulted by the defendant; and
any services rendered by the complainant subsequently, were
voluntary. The defendant, however, admits that on one or two
occasions, the complainant
"happened to be present with the board of commissioners, while
the claim was under consideration, and rendered essential service
in removing objections
Page 56 U. S. 419
which might have proved very injurious, if not fatal to it, if
they had not been removed."
John Baldwin a brother of Samuel, being sworn, states, that he
received various documents from his brother in relation to this
claim, with instructions to take measures for the recovery of it.
He placed the papers in the hands of the complainant, and agreed
with him to prosecute the claim on the same conditions as a claim
he had prosecuted for witness. The papers were translated, and,
with a memorial, were filed in the Department of State. His brother
died, and at the instance of complainant the defendant was
appointed administrator, for whose services witness agreed to pay
five percent but witness did not intend to supersede the
complainant, and thinks he is entitled to his fee.
In answer to an interrogatory, the witness says, the complainant
was to receive a contingent fee of five percentum out of the fund
awarded, whether money or scrip; if nothing was received, he was
entitled to nothing for his services.
It is contended by the defendant, that the complainant having
been dismissed by the agent of the widow, who was the executrix of
her husband, and not being employed by the defendant, he has no
right to the compensation claimed. That John Baldwin acted as the
agent of his brother, in making the contract with the complainant
is proved. The defendant seems to suppose that, as on the death of
Samuel Baldwin the agency of his brother ceased, the contract which
had been made by him was no longer in force. The relation of
administrator enabled the defendant to control the case and
dispense with the further services of the complainant; but he had
no power to annul the contract if made
bona fide, by the
complainant, and the business had been faithfully prosecuted by
him.
It appears the complainant, on being employed in the case, had
the papers translated and filed, with a memorial, in the Department
of State, and that for several years, with much labor, he did all
in his power to procure the action of the federal government in its
behalf. A claim of indemnity from Mexico, through the remonstrances
of our government, was the only step which, at that time, could be
taken. A war intervened, and on the restoration of peace, provision
was made for the examination and decision of such claims, and also
for their payment.
The complainant gave advice as to the necessary evidence to be
procured in Mexico, for the establishment of the claim, and was
consulted respecting the memorial to the commissioners; and while
they had the claim under examination, it is admitted that the
complainant, by his explanations and arguments, removed
difficulties and objections which, unexplained, would in
Page 56 U. S. 420
all probability have prevented the allowance of the claim. We
think the contract is proved, also the services rendered under it,
by the complainant, and that he is entitled to the compensation
claimed.
It is objected that equity can exercise no jurisdiction in the
case, as adequate relief may be obtained at law.
There may be a legal remedy, and yet if a more complete remedy
can be had in chancery, it is a sufficient ground for jurisdiction.
The 8th section of the act to carry out the Mexican treaty,
authorizes a bill to be filed, where an individual other than the
one to whom the money was awarded claims it, to contest the right,
and to enjoin the payment of the money. This applies only to cases
where different individuals claim the fund, but the reason of such
a proceeding may, to some extent, apply to other cases. And it
applies to the case before us, if the money still remain in the
Treasury. The bill, however, does not seem to have been drawn with
reference to the act.
The evidence proves that the complainant was to receive a
contingent fee of five percentum, out of the fund awarded, whether
money or scrip. This being the contract, it constituted a lien upon
the fund, whether it should be money or scrip. The fund was looked
to and not the personal responsibility of the owner of the claim. A
bill filed under the act would have authorized an injunction for
the amount claimed, by complainant. Such a procedure would be
within the act. But under the contract the lien on the fund in the
hands of the administrator, is a sufficient ground for an equity
jurisdiction. The payment of the fund to the executrix in Mexico
would place it, probably, beyond the reach of the complainant.
The want of jurisdiction, if relied on by the defendants, should
have been alleged by plea or answer. It is too late to raise such
an objection on the hearing in the appellate court, unless the want
of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the bill.
We affirm the decree with costs.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia, holden in and for the County of Washington, and was
argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here
ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court, that the decree of
the said circuit court in this cause be, and the same is hereby,
affirmed, with costs and interest until paid, at the same rate per
annum that similar decrees bear in the courts of the District of
Columbia.
