c1sr.1.ur.orr> MANuF’e co. v. CHANDLER. 13
highest character and extensive practice that there can be no doubt
that the practice, in the districts where these suits were carried on,
is very largely in conformity with it. But, on the other hand, wit-
nesses of equal credit and opportunity to know have testified that they
are not aware of any such invariable usage. That these are fewerin
number than the others does not affect the result. Scudder v. Brad-
bury, 106 Mass. 422; Porter v. Hills, 114 Mass. 106. This usage,
too, if it were fully proved, does not appear to prevail generally, but,
so far as the evidence in this case shows, is confined to a. few states.
It is not shown to exist in the community where the plaintiff belongs.
The only evidence on that point was in direct denial of such a usage
there. Nor has it been shown, or even been attempted to be shown,
that the plaintiff, its ofncers or agents, who employed Mr. Chandler,
had any knowledge of such a usage in Massachusetts, New Hamp-
shire, or Maine, the states in which the services were to be performed.
Under this state of facts, the plaintiff cannot be held bound by any
such usage as is invoked by the defendant. Adams v. Inszvrance Oo.,
17 Fed. Rep. 630; Mmjye v. Stmuse, 6 Sawy. 204; S. C. 5 Fed. Rep.
483; Cobb v. Lime Rock Ins. O0., 58 Me. 326; Dodge v. Favor, 15
Gray, 82; Stevens v. Reeves, 9 Pick. 201. *
But though the taxable costs, as such, neither belong primarily to
the attorney, by force of any law, and have not been shown to be his
by force of any usage that they shall be considered to belong to him,
he is still entitled to reasonable compensation for his services. “He
is entitled to a just and fair compensation for services rendered. It
matters little whether the charge be a specinc sum equivalent to the
taxable bill of costs, less the witness fees, or the bill of costs specific-
ally named. In either event, it represents the charge for services
renderled. The reasonableness of the claim is tobe determined by
the tribunal to whose judgment the case is submitted." Clay v.
Moulton, 70 Me. 316. "When the party employs an attorney to at-
tend to the casefor him, the party becomes indebted to the attorney
for his services and disbursements in the suit; and to insure his pay
the law gives the attorney, not any particular item of costs that may
have accrued in the case, but a lien upon the whole bill of costs for
what may be justly due him for such services and disbursements;
and when his client prevails in the suit, we think the attorney may
justly charge him, among other items, with the amount recovered
for travel and attendance? Cooly v Patterson, 52 Me. 472. .
`Mr. Chandler, by his employment, was required to keep a super-
vision of all suits, whether many or few, that might be commenced
against dentists using celluloid. In fact, he became thus connected
with 164 cases. Each was distinct from all the others. In each
vigilance and care were required of him. Each imposed on him the
duty of keeping watch of the movement of the opposing party, in-
forming the leading solicitors of what was taking place, and answer-
ing the inquiries of the defendants, corresponding, filing papers, and
 .