Wylie v. Coxe (56 U.S. 415)

by John McLean

United States Supreme Court

56 U.S. 415

Wylie  v.  Coxe

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

It 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 per centum 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 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 14 Howard, 1, may be understood.

The case as it now stood before this court, was argued by Mr. Wylie, for the appellant, and Mr. Badger, for the appellee.

Mr. Wylie made the following points:

First Point.-The death of Samuel Baldwin in December, 1847, put an end to the agency of both John Baldwin and Richard S.C.oxe, as to this claim. Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174; Campbell v. Kincaid, 3 Monroe, Rep. 566. Newbaker v. Alricks, 5 Watts, 183.

Second Point.-There is no contract even alleged as between complainant and respondent, much less a contract fixing the compensation of the former at five per cent. on the amount recovered. On the contrary, any such contract, agreement, or understanding, is positively denied by the answer, nor was there the slightest proof thereof on the part of the complainant. And yet the court below decreed the payment of the five per cent. as though such a contract had been proved.

Third Point.-There was no evidence on the part of complainant to show that he had rendered any valuable service in the case, which in equity and good faith required compensation; and if such service had been rendered at the request of the administrator, there being no special contract shown, the decree of the court below was erroneous. The quantum meruit should have been established in another tribunal.

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes