Lane v. Coleman

47 Ky. 569, 8 B. Mon. 569, 1848 Ky. LEXIS 138
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided September 23, 1848·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is apparent from the evidence in this record, that Lane acted, for six or eight years or more, as the agent of Coleman in the preparation and management of a very burthensome litigation, in which he incurred great personal trouble as well as expense. It is obvious too, that his services were highly useful and must have been rendered by some one in the character of agent, as Coleman was entirely incompetent himself, and seems ' [570] to have done nothing in the active conduct of the suits, and his attorneys seem not only to have recognized Lane, but to have depended on him in the sphere of the business in which he acted. These circumstances, in addition to the express evidence of authority from and recognition by Coleman, during the progress of the litigation, leave no room to doubt that Lane was, from the first, the authorized agent of Coleman, and that he was entitled to a fair compensation for his services and expenditures. This was, indeed, admitted after the termination of his agency, by Coleman, and also by Harris, who now claims, and was perhaps at the time, interested in the subject and proceeds of the litigation and the fruits of Lane’s services. This fair compensation to Lane may, therefore, and should be regarded as a part ■of the expenses of the litigation, which in the final adjustment of the matter, if not before, Coleman was in good faith bound to pay or provide for. And as this •obligation was recognized by himself and Harris about the time when the written transfer of the proceeds of the suits was made from the former to the latter, as evidenced by the power of attorney to Turner, directing him, out of the proceeds of the suits, to pay all costs ■and expenses of the suits, including attorney’s fees, and to pay the residue to Harris, we are of opinion that by a proper construction of this instrument with reference to the subject and circumstances to which it applies, the phrase “expenses of the suits,” must be understood as embracing this just compensation to Lane for his services and expenditures. Indeed, if it was only intended to secure the legal costs and attorney’s fees, this being expressly provided for, the words “and expenses of the suits” would be wholly superfluous. But as there was, in fact, a subject connected with the matter of the instrument, to which these words may apply, and which should in propriety have been provided for, and which the parties may be presumed to have intended to provide for, these words cannot be rejected, but should have their full effect in application to the subject referred to. Under this power of attorney, Lane is entitled to claim, ■out of the proceeds of the suit., in the hands of the at[571] torney therein named, who is in effect a trustee, a fair and just compensation before Harris is entitled to any thing.

An agent acting under a power of attorney duly recorded, which provided for the payment of the costs of the litigation arising in the transaction of the business, held to be entitled tocompensation for his services and expenses in and about the business of the agency — and his equitable claim to compensation regarded as superior to that of a transferee of the fruits of the litigation.

It is true, Harris claims also under a separate transfer, bearing the same date with this power, and which does not, in terms, except or reserve any thing for expenses beyond the officer’s and attorney’s fees. But he also claims under the power of attorney which was, in fact, written by an attorney, at the joint request and under the joint instruction of himself and Coleman, and for the purpose of evidencing and securing the interest of Harris, as well as the other objects mentioned therein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lane v. Coleman, 47 Ky. 569, 8 B. Mon. 569, 1848 Ky. LEXIS 138 (Ky. Ct. App. 1848).

47 Ky. 569 (Lane v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Muscogee Lumber Co. v. Hyer
18 Fla. 698 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)
Reed v. Welsh
74 Ky. 450 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1875)