Stanton v. Haskin
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
STATEMENT OE THE CASE. The bill in this case is brought for the purpose of enforcing the specific performance of a contract, which is. expressed in the following words: “We have employed A. J. Rogers and F. P. Stanton to institute a suit in chancery for us against Wm.
Read the full summary
STATEMENT OE THE CASE. The bill in this case is brought for the purpose of enforcing the specific performance of a contract, which is. expressed in the following words: “We have employed A. J. Rogers and F. P. Stanton to institute a suit in chancery for us against Wm. Durr, of' Washington City, for the recovery of 78-1 acres of land in Prince George’s County, Md., under a contract of said Durrwith Jane Hasltin dated 3d September, 1869. And we hereby agree and bind ourselves to give said attorneys, Rogers and Stanton, one-third part of whatever may be recovered from said Durr, whether the same…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice MacArthur
The principal ground on which the case is defended is, that the agreement set up in the bill is champertous and void. In the case of Stanley vs. Jones, 7 Bing., 349, Chief-Justice Tindall defines champerty to be the unlawful maintenance of a suit in consideration of some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. This is the generally-received meaning of champerty in this country as well as in England. Thalimer vs. Brinkerhoff, 20 Johns, 386; 9 Met., 489; 18 Ind., 117. Now, by the terms of the contract, Stanton and Rogers undertook to prosecute a suit in chancery against one William…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Evans v. EllisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Day v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Starr v. VanderheydenNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Mott v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
- Swift v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1821
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rizzi v. FanelliDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949