Calhoun v. Massie

Background

Bland Massie, a Virginia citizen, had a claim for property taken during the Civil War. He hired lawyer C. C. Calhoun in 1911 under a written agreement to pay fifty percent of any amount recovered, with a lien on any government warrant. The Court of Claims recommended payment, and Congress passed the Omnibus Claims Act appropriating $1,900 for Massie. Section 4 of that Act limited any attorney’s or agent’s recovery to twenty percent and made collecting more a misdemeanor. The Treasury issued two warrants: $380 to Calhoun and $1,520 to Massie. Calhoun sued in state court for the extra $570; the courts dismissed his claim and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Congress could impose the fee limit and prevent Calhoun from enforcing his prior contract. It relied on long-standing congressional controls over claims, past statutes, and public policy against excessive contingent deals. The Court held that the contract lien was void under existing statutes, that Congress could set conditions on appropriations, and that accepting the twenty percent warrant meant Calhoun accepted the Act’s terms. Thus Calhoun could not recover additional fees even though he had performed the work before the law.

Real world impact

The decision confirms that when Congress sets a fee limit in an appropriation for claims, attorneys cannot recover more from those appropriated funds. It protects the Treasury against large contingent fees and limits private enforcement of older contracts where payment depends on a congressional appropriation. The ruling applies to similar statutes governing claims payments.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the rule deprives an attorney of property and liberty by nullifying an existing contract and criminalizing excess collection, urging reversal to protect contractual rights.