Bradford v. MacKenzie

Opinion by Schmucker, J., ⁷⁶³ Elizabeth Bradford, who was committee of her lunatic son, Charles H. Bradford, desiring to be relieved of her office, filed through her counsel, Messrs. Findlay and Mackenzie, a petition in the lunacy proceeding pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, asking to be relieved. After proper proceedings had upon her petition an account was stated between her and the-lunatic’s estate and an order was passed on July the 9th, 1893, removing her and appointing Thomas Mackenzie committee in her stead. The new committee qualified and the lunatic’s estate, consisting of $6,238.36 in cash, was paid to him.

For the professional services rendered by Messrs. Findlay and Mackenzie in effecting this change of committee, a counsel fee of $100 was allowed them on June 14th, 1893. On March 31st, 1897, the same counsel were allowed a lee of $150 for current legal services rendered the lunatic’s estate during the four years prior to the date of the allowance. Each of these two counsel fees was allowed by an order of Court passed upon a petition, to which was appended a certificate of two reputable members of the bar that the fee asked for was a reasonable one for the services rendered, and each fee formed an item of an auditor’s account which was first ratified nisi, and in the absence of exceptions was finally ratified in due course.

On July 13th, 1896, Mr. Mackenzie, as committee, filed a petition under oath setting forth that he had prior thereto made an agreement, subject to the ratification of the Court, with John V. L. Findlay, to pay him, in consideration of services to be rendered by him in prosecuting the claim before the Legislature of Maryland, one-fifth of whatever sum the ⁷⁶⁴ Legislature would appropriate for the benefit of the lunatic, as one of the children of the late Gov. Augustus W. Bradford, for the destruction, in -1864, óf his residence and its contents. The petition also averred that the Legislature had made an appropriation of $30,000, of which $4,285.71 was .the share of the lunatic as one of the seven children of Governor Bradford; and that Mr. Findlay’s one-fifth share of the lunatic’s portion would amount to $857.14. It further stated that the services rendered by Mr. Findlay in prosecuting the claim before the Legislature had been valuable and effective and that his charge therefor was a reasonable one, and prayed for authority to pay him the fee as agreed upon.

On this petition an order was passed by the Court on July 13th, 1896, authorizing the committee to pay to Mr. Findlay the $857.14. The money was paid to him and the committee was allowed credit for the amount so paid in the next auditor’s account, which was finally ratified in due course on April 24th, 1897. On July 8th, 1898, the appellant filed in the lunacy case a petition, not as the next friend of the lunatic or on his behalf, büt on his own behalf, alleging that he was one of the next of kin and heirs at law of the lunatic, and that the fee of $100 allowed to Mess. Findlay and Mackenzie was excessive; that the allowance to them of the fee of $150 was erroneous, and that the'allowance of the $857.14 to Mr. Findlay was wholly unwarranted and fraudulent. -The prayer of the petition was that the several auditor’s accounts in which the allowance of these fees had been ratified be reopened and the fee of $100 be reduced to $50, and the other two fees be entirely ■disallowed.

The Court said : “ The grounds of the charges made in the petition w'ere in substance, as therein stated, that no adequate services had been rendered for the first-mentioned twm fees, and that Mr. Findlay had been of no service in procuring the Legislature to make the grant to the heirs of Governor Bradford, but had been an obstacle in the way of its success. The charge of fraud in reference to the allowance of the $857.14 to Mr. Findlay was supported by the allegation ⁷⁶⁵ that prior to the procuring by Mr. Mackenzie of the order of Court to pay the $857. 14, the