|
|
Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 253 U.S. 149, click here.
Calhoun v. Massie No. 294 Argued March 11, 1920 Decided May 17, 1920 253 U.S. 170
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Syllabus
An agreement that the fee of an attorney for successfully prosecuting a claim against the United States shall be a lien upon any warrant that may be issued in payment of the claim is void under Rev.Stats., § 3477. P. 175.
Section 4 of the Omnibus Claims Act of March 4, 1915, c. 140, 38 Stat. 962, in its limitation of the amount that may be paid to or received by an attorney on account of services rendered or advances made in connection with any claim for which the act made appropriation does not refer merely to the specific funds received from the government, but makes payment or receipt in excess of the limitation unlawful whatever the source. Id.
This broader prohibition is within the power of Congress as applied to a contract made and substantially performed by the attorney, before Congress and in the Court of Claims, before the act was passed but respecting a claim as to which no right of recovery existed under any act of Congress when the contract was made and which depended for its recognition on the action of Congress in making an appropriation. P. 175.
In such a case, the attorney’s contract being to secure the appropriation, the passage of the appropriation is a condition precedent to his client’s liability to him, and, Congress having power to condition such appropriations and having been accustomed so to limit attorney’s fees, such a limitation may be taken to have been within the contemplation of the parties, and impliedly assented to by the attorney in making his contract. P. 176.
Where an attorney for a claimant receives the full amount allowed him out of the specific fund appropriated under an act which limits his fee to that amount, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding, he takes under the act, and cannot repudiate its provisions, and any verbal reservation of his rights under the contract is futile. P. 177.
123 Va. 673 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920) in 253 U.S. 170 253 U.S. 171. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3HNGRQA7D6VMKFL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920), in 253 U.S. 170, page 253 U.S. 171. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3HNGRQA7D6VMKFL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920). cited in 1920, 253 U.S. 170, pp.253 U.S. 171. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3HNGRQA7D6VMKFL.
|