Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/519

UNITED BTATBS V. GBIBWOLD. 505 �The mortgage'is allowed to stand as a valid lien on the property for the amount loaned thereon, ^with interest, less the amount paid thereon by Griswold — $325.80 — and the priority of the United States must be enforced subject thereto. �As to the mortgage of H., D., and T., to secure their fee of $10,- 000, the evidence is satisfactoiy that the contract was made and the mortgage taken by them in good faith for the purpose claimed. It may be that Griswold was influenced in giving the mortgage *in this amount by the consideration that he preferred to spend the prop- erty in litigation rather than allow it to be appropriated to pay what he owed the plaintiff . But there is no evidence in the case to sustain the allegation that this contract is tainted with a secret trust in f avor of Griswold or any one else. The conversation between Griswold and Thompson, to which John Young testiues, wherein the latter said that, in some event, they would take the case up, and the former must pay them another $1,000, in addition to the $2,000 before agreed upon, is relied on as showing directly that the fee really agreed to be paid was much less than $10,000. But though it may be claimed from the general drift of the witness' testimony that this conversation occurred after the, making of this contract and mort- gage, there is a circumstance stated in it which plainly shows that it took place during the first trial, and, of course, before they were made ; for Young states that after this conversation he saw Griswold on the street, who then told him "that the jury had disagreed ;" and as this only occurred on the first trial, and before the contract and mortgage were made, it follows that the conversation between Thomp- son and Griswold in no way conflicts with them. It is also insisted that the fee is extravagant, and grossly in excess of the ordinary com- pensation allowed and paid for similar services in this state ; and so much Bo, that the contract and mortgage ought to be considered and held fraudulent on that account for all -in excess of $3,000. But the weight of the testimony does not support this conclusion. Besides, the services of the defendants having been rendered in the United States courts, the character and extent of them are well known to us. The case was a very extraordinary one in many respects, involv- ing a claim for $143,000, of which about $35,000 for damages and as much more for forfeitures was well founded in fact and law, be- sides very grave charges against the defendant's integrity. There were three jury trials — the first one resulting in a disagreement of the jury after being on 24 days; the second one occupied nine- teen days and the third one fifteen. There was a motion for a ��� �