MCNEILL ET AL.
v.
NEVIUS ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A contingent fee contract to negotiate the sale of property to the United States is void as against public policy.
Appellants sued appellees for commissions allegedly due under a contract to represent the owners before government entities for the sale of real estat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recovery Of Commissions cases and more on FLexlaw
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
The appellants brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to recover commissions allegedly due under a contract made in contemplation of the sale of certain real estate to the Government. This contract between the owners of the property, appellees, and the appellants called for the latter (according to their own version) to represent the owners before various committees of Congress, agencies, departments, and commissions of the United States Government. It further provided as compensation for the appellants a two per cent commission of the purchase price; the compensation was made contingent on appellants’ successfully making the sale.
The lower court directed a verdict for the appellees on the pleadings and the opening statement at the conclusion of the appellants’ opening statement. The authority of a Federal Court to do so is supported by the cases. McGovern v. Hitt, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 33, 64 F. 2d 156, certiorari denied, 1933, 290 U.S. 637, 54 S.Ct. 54, 78 L.Ed. 554.
The directed verdict was made on the ground that this contingent fee contract to negotiate the sale of property to the United States is contrary to public policy and void. We have so held. Noonan v. Gilbert, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 30, 68 F. 2d 775; Silverman v. Osborne Register Co., 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 155 F. 2d 879, and cases therein cited.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LE John Mfg. Co. v. Webb, 222 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
-
Landa v. Astin, 193 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
-
Luff v. Luff, 267 F.2d 643 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Authorities Cited
- Noonan v. Gilbert, 68 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1934)
- Coalinga-Mohawk Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 290 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1933)
- Emp'rs Liab. Assurance Corp., Ltd v. Kerper, 290 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1933)
- McGOVERN v. Hitt, 64 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1933)
- Silverman v. Osborne Register Co. (D.D.C. 1946)