McGraw v. Canton

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There are two appeals in this case from orders of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. The main question turns upon the right of the Court to allow counsel fees to Messrs. Ruddell and Hall and McColgan, for services rendered in setting aside a fraudulent deed from James McGraw to Susan L. Canton.

The facts as disclosed by the record are these: On the first day of April, 1881, James McGraw made a will devising all his property, real and personal, except one lot of ground, to his daughter Susan L. Canton, in trust for the use and benefit of his children. Shortly after his death, a deed dated the 22d day of April, 1881, was placed upon record in Baltimore City, which conveyed the hulk of his property to Susan L. Canton absolutely. On petition of Wm. J. McGraw, this deed was set aside upon the ground of fraud, and the reasons therefor are set forth in an opinion of this Court reported in the case of Canton, et al. vs. McGraw, 67 Md., 583 .

The sum of $3,000 was allowed by the Court as counsel fees out of the trust estate. The amount of property recovered and brought into the trust estate by reason of the suit is variously estimated by the witnesses from $7,000 to $21,000. The evidence in the case shows that the children of James McGraw, other than William J., opposed the effort to vacate the deed, and preferred that the property should pass-to Mrs. Canton under the deed. They did not unite in employing Messrs.

Ruddell and Hall and McColgan, and were not willing to recognize their services. Their testimony is full and explicit to the effect that they did not accept the services as rendered, and were not ⁵⁵⁸ benefited by them, and that they stood ready to execute any acquittance to Susan L. Canton as' if the deed of James McGraw to her had never been annulled. Now, we know of no legal principle by which these defendants; upon the facts of this case, can be required to contribute to the payment of counsel fees to one whom they did not employ, and.whose services they claim were adverse- to their interest. It was held in Strike’s Case, 1-Bland, 98, that agreements between solicitors and suitors relative to professional services must be enforced like other contracts, and could not be introduced into and settled as a part of the case.

The Chancellor said, in dismissing the petition, “that he knew of no practice of this Court, or of any analogous proceeding of the English Court, which would authorize the introduction of claims of this sort into a cause depending or about to be finally disposed of, and that contracts between solicitors and suitors, relative to professional services, are to be settled and decided upon in like manner as all other contracts.” This case was affirmed by this Court in Marshall, Fisher, et al. vs. Cooper, 43 Md., 62 , and we there said that this has been the universal practice in this State. We have, however, been referred to the case of Davis, Brydon, et al. vs. Gemmell, et al., 73 Md., 530 , as establishing a different rule to govern such cases; and the appellants seek to bring their case within the rulings there made. But the facts of the present case are