Merryman v. Euler

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Upon the application of “The President and Directors of the German Eire Insurance Company of Baltimore,” who held the first mortgage on the property, with assent therein to a decree, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City passed a decree against Henry Otto, the mortgagor, for the sale of the mortgaged property, and had appointed Lewis H. Robinson trustee to sell the same. It appears, that the appellee, John Euler, had the second mortgage on the property, and employed the appellant to look after his rights to the surplus proceeds, after paying the first mortgage. The property was sold, and the sale reported and ratified.

Appellant filed a petition in Euler’s name, ⁵⁸⁹ asking that he he made a party defendant, and that the surplus proceeds, after paying the first mortgage, might be awarded to him. He was made a defendant by order of Court. Appellant then filed Euler’s claim with the interest which had accrued added. Subsequently the appellant filed a petition in his own name, setting up an assignment from John Euler for one-half of any sum that might be awarded Euler in the case.

That agreement was dated the 25th of November, 1881, (the same day on which the sale took place), and was an assignment under seal. To the allowance of this claim on the part of the appellant, the appellee objected, and filed a petition asking its disallowance: 1st. “ Because the same was procured from him when he was in a condition making bim unconscious of what he was doing or the effect thereof.” 2nd. “ Because the only professional labor performed by Merryman in the case was filing the claim of the appellee; and that the said Merryman had no right to any allowance out of the funds in the trustee’s, hands.” The Court ordered testimony to he taken, upon which two audits were stated, one allowing, and the other disallowing the claim of the appellant. The Court upon the proof rejected the account allowing the assignment to Merryman, and ratified the account which disallowed it. Before finally ratifying either, however, the Court offered to direct the allowance of fifty dollars for appellant’s services and no more, and to have that put into the account it would ratify.

This was refused by the appellant, who appealed from the order of the Court ratifying the account which excluded his claim. The Court said: “ The relation of counsel and client is a fiduciary one, requiring the Court to scrutinize any contract between them, and upholds only such an one as is apparently reasonable and fair. The real labor in this case was performed by Mr. Robinson, the trustee, who has been allowed a fee of one hundred and fifty dollars for his ⁵⁹⁰ services. If Mr. Merryman will take a fee of fifty dollars for his compensation, I will ratify an account making him that allowance.” Upon an examination of all the evidence in the case, we think that the Court not only took the right view of the law, hut also offered Mr. Merryman all that could possibly he asked under the circumstances.

There was some difficulty in respect to the title that was to be sold, because of the extinction of the leases upon the property, which required some negotiation to