Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Fla. 383

King v. Pons

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 10, 1919

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1919-04-10

<p>1 A contract, between a person holding a claim against the United States Government and. his attorney whereby it is undertaken to give the latter a lien upon any check, draft or certificate or other medium of payment issued in settlement of the claim as securtiy for the fee agreed to be paid, is void in so far as it undertakes to create a lien upon the check, draft, certificate or other medium of payment, but the agreement to pay for the services to be rendered is valid although it gives the attorney no intérest or share in the particular money paid over by the government.</p> <p>2 One who has a legal claim against an administrator of an estate for services rendered which have proved beneficial to the estate and the administrator personally is insolvent and unable to respond to a judgment in favor of the creditor, the latter may be subrogated in equity to the administrator’s right to reimburse himself out of the estate.</p> <p>3. An Act of Congress making an appropriation of money in settlement of a claim against the United States Government which provides that no part of the amount appropriated in excess of twenty per centum shall be paid or delivered to any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with the claim does not affect the validity of a contract made between the claimant’s administrator and an attorney for services to be rendered in prosecuting the claim, nor does it make unlawful the payment by the administrator after the money comes into his hands of the agreed compensation nor, in case of the administrator’s insolvency and in ability to respond to a personal judgment for the services rendered, does it deprive the attorney creditor of his right to be subrogated in equity to the administrator’s right to reimburse himself out of the estate.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1943

2 state decisions

Relies on Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire · Legal Tender Cases Knox v. Lee Parker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Order reversed · Decided 1919-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Whitfield, J.,

¶1dissenting. — This is a suit to enforce the terms of a contract transferring an interest in a claim against the United States, and not a suit to recover on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered, in which latter case a valid agreement as to the amount of compensation may be used as evidence of the value of the services; yet a contract may not defeat a lawful exercise of the powers of government. 219 U. S. 467; 12 Wall. 457. The nature of the suit is as stated, although equity jurisdiction is claimed on the ground of subrogation. Courts will not by indirection giye effect to an invalid contract.

¶2The contract sought to be enforced transfers an interest in a claim against the United States and is contrary to the provisions, to the purpose and to the policy of a prior Act of Congress (See. 3477, Revised Statutes), therefore the contract is not legally enforceable. The contract is also contrary to the terms of a later Act of Congress' of March 4, 1915, which Act is not invalid since the Federal constitution does not prohibit Congress from violating the obligation of a contract when exercising a power conferred; and all contract and property rights are subject to the lawful exercise by Congress of the Federal authority. Freedom of contract is a qualified, not an absolute right. It implies absence of arbitrary restrain, not immunity from reasonable regulations. 219 U. S. 549.

¶3The later Act obviously was intended to protect persons having claims against the United States from unreasonable or improvident contracts for the collection of *395such claims, a purpose within the power of Congress. Emphasis to the policy of the former Act is given by the later Act, which is not palpably arbitrary and oppressive in its terms or in its application to the contract in this case. “Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance” of the Federal Constitution are part of “the supreme law of the land.” This case is essetniallv different from those in 200 U. S. 12 and 2237 U. S. 285. See 157 U. S. 160; 161 U. S. 72.

West, J., concurs.
/77/fla/383 · .json · Public domain