14 FEDERAL riizroarniz.
attending to the various small and constantly arising details in such
business. In 124 of those cases costs were collected amounting to
the large amount demanded in this action. But these cases must be
· looked at distributively, and not collectively, to determine the reason-
able compensation of the solicitor. The amount is charged in gross
to the Celluloid Company for services in the whole 164 cases, and is
equivalent to $36.64 for each case. The sum collected, including the
two cash payments of $250 each, and deducting the amount of ex-
penditures, is equal to $30.08 for services in each suit. The total
charged, above the costs collected, would be $9.84 for each case; and,
if the taxable costs collected be assumed to be charged only in the 124
cases in which costs were recovered, they would then stand as contin-
gent fees in prevailing defenses of $39.83 per case, giving the solic-
itor for each case, whe1·e his client was successful, $49.67, and in the
unsuccessful cases but $9.84; and the whole, with the exception of
less than $2 per case, drawn from the purse of the adverse party.
Whatever may be taken as the rule for distributing these costs, or
the charge made, the compensation claimed cannot be considered un-
reasonable or excessive, and the plaintiff cannot recover anything in
this action.
· This conclusion obviates the need of considering the right of the
plaintiff to maintain this action.
Judgment for defendant. _
Cmurmn Tnusr Co. and another v. Wxmsn, Sr. L. 6: P. R!. C0.
and others. (Crrr or Sr. Cmanns, Intervenor.)'
' (Circuit Oourt, E. D. Miaaomt. March 25, 1886.)
1. T§[xurro¤—Assm sMnNr on Rxrnwu PROPERTY—SECTION 1, Am. 10, Consr.
o.
The provisions of the act of the Qneral assembly of Missouri, of July 80,
· 1877, and of the Revised Statutes of i souri of 187 , (sections 6865-6900,) giv-
ing the state board of equalization exclusive power to assess railroad prop-
erty, are not contrary to the provisions of section 1, art. 10, of the constitu-
tion of Missouri. ‘
2. SAME.
Neither are said statutor provisions in conflict with that provision of the
charter of the city of St. Ciharles which authorizes said city to levy and col-
lect taxcs “upon all real and personal estate, taxable by the laws of the state, ”
within its limits. .
lh SAME.
‘ Under said statutes the state board of equalization has authority to decide
_ that railway bridges within the city limits of St. Charles shall be assessed and
taxed as.part of e road-bed and superstructure.
V 'Reportcd by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., ofthe St. Louis bar. ` A-