Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/288

268 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. It was conceded that the power to compromise given to the attorneys by Charles W. Jeffries came to an end with his death unless it was " coupled with an interest." The usual rule of law is that a power given to an agent may be revoked at the will of the principal or is revoked by his death, the agent who is dis- missed in breach of his contract of employment having his remedy in a suit for damages. The case last cited turned, therefore, upon the meaning of the words " power coupled with an interest." Now a power given to an attorney to compromise a suit is en- tirely different in kind from the power considered in Hunt v. Rousmanier. The latter was a power over property, theyV/J dispo- nendi. The former did not concern property ; it was not an estate, it was not a power to dispose of property ; the exercise of it did not directly create a fund ; it was not given as security. It was not coupled with an interest in the sense in which Hunt's power was claimed to be. It was coupled with an interest only in the sense that it was one step towards the attorney's obtaining the compensation agreed to be paid to him for his agency. Most powers in an agent are in such a sense coupled with an interest and would be on that ground irrevocable. In the later case of Missouri v. Walker,^ the facts were these: The State of Missouri entered into a contract with Walker to employ him as his agent for prosecuting certain claims of the State against the United States. By the contract it was agreed that the State would deliver to him the vouchers relating to the claims, and he was authorized to prosecute them in Washington. For his services he was to receive a contingent fee. The State afterwards repudiated its contract. Walker demanded certain vouchers which came within the scope of the contract, and they were refused to him. He then filed a petition for mandamus to compel the delivery of the vouchers. His petition was denied by the State court, and its judgment was affirmed on error by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case the Court cited with approval and followed the deci- sion in Hunt v. Rousmanier, and decided that the agency of Walker was not coupled with an interest and was revocable. It said : — "There is nothing, therefore, in the consideration for the employment to prevent this agency from being revoked like any other. The interest coupled with a power to make it irrevocable must be an interest in the 1 125 U. S. 339.