SOLOMON J. FAGUE US. WILLIAM W. CORCORAN. LAW. No. 23,168. Decided March 31, 1884. {The CHIEF JUSTICE and Justices Cox and JAMES sitting. 1. In the correction and revision of erroneous special assessments for street improvements, the District Commissioners had adopted a general rule whereby a certain class, known as "Henry Cooke" assessments were uniformly reduced two-thirds of the original sum. F., who was attorney for C. in the prosecution of claims for the reduction of over assessments upon C.'s property, included in his bill for services a churge of ten per cent. upon the amount saved to C. by the reduction of these "Henry Cooke' assessments. Held, That unless there was some proof of services rendered by F. in effecting this reduction, he would not be entitled to recover this item of his bill. 2. Nor can recovery be had on a like charge for reductions claimed to have been effected on certain assessments, where an act of Congress is required before any credits for such reduction can be realized and no such act has been passed. 3. Where, also, certain assessments had been cancelled by a general order of the Commissioners, compensation cannot be had on account of the cancellation without showing that the plaintiff's services were directed to securing it. 4. Where the declaration consists of the common counts, with a bill of particulars annexed, no recovery can be had for services not included among the items of charges contained in the bill of particulars. The latter defines the application of the common counts, and is a part of the pleading under our system. It apprises the defendant what it is the plaintiff expects to recover on, and if the bill contains no such item, no recovery cau be had, even if the services were in fact rendered. 5. But the court may, on a new trial being granted, allow an amendment of the bill of particulars, so as to include such a charge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The plaintiff brought this action to recover of the defendant $3,356.43, under the following declaration and bill of particulars : "The plaintiff sues the defendant for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and for work done and material provided by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, and for money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant; and for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request; and for money received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff; and for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them; and the plaintiff claims $53,356.43, with interest from the 15th day of September, A. D. 1881, according to the particulars of demand hereto annexed. "2d. The plaintiff also sues the defendant for a further sum of indebtedness due the plaintiff from the defendant, to wit, the sum of $3,356.43, with interest from the 15th day of September, A. D. 1881, for the work, labor, care and diligence and attendance of the plaintiff by the plaintiff done, performed and bestowed as the agent of and for the defendant, at his special instance and request, evidenced by his certain powers of attorney to defendant, and by verbal requests made by defendant to and of plaintiff from time to time to so act for him the said defendant, in and about preparing, presenting, filing and prosecuting before the late Board of Audit of said District, and before the Board of Commissioners of said District, defendant's claims for damages to defendant's real property, and to real property in which defendant was interested, for old material of defendant taken from in front of defendant's real property, and for erroneous or excessive charges in certain special assessments against said property of defendant, and against said property in which defendant was interested; and, further, for certain commissions and awards upon the sums awarded or allowed by said boards in, about and concerning said claims so prepared, presented, filed and prosecuted as aforesaid; and he, the said defendant, faithfully promised the said plaintiff to pay him so much money as he therefore reasonably deserved to have of the said defendant, and when he, the said defendant, should be thereunto afterwards requested. And the plaintiff avers that he therefore reasonably deserved to have of the said defendant the said sum of $3,356.43, the same being ten per cent. of the award or allowances aforesaid made by said boards in respect to the claims aforesaid prepared, presented, filed and prosecuted aforesaid in respect to the property mentioned and set forth in the particulars of demand in respect to said allowances or awards hereto annexed, and hereby made part hereof the said sum of $3,356.43, being the net amount of said ten per cent. after crediting said defendant with certain payments thereon on account thereof made by defendant from time to time, and as set forth in said particulars of demand. Nevertheless, the said defendant, not regarding his several promises and undertakings in and about the premises, but contriving and fraudulently intending, craftily and subtly, to deceive and defraud the plaintiff in this behalf, has not as yet paid said sum of $3,356.43, or any part thereof, although said defendant afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of September, A. D. 1881, was requested by said plaintiff so to do; but the said defendant to pay the same has hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still does neglect and refuse, to the damage of the said plaintiff, of $3,356.43, with interest thereon from the 15th day of September, A. D. 1881; and therefore he brings suit. Bill of Particulars. Total reductions by Commissioners... $30,811 91 Balance Louise Home ordered by act of Congress. 6,687 63 Am't damage before Board of Audit on Lot 10, sq. 400 00 $37,899 54 WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 6, '81. W. W. Corcoran to Solomon J. Fague, Dr.: To services before the Board of Audit in filing bills and prosecuting same continuously before the Commissioners of the Dist. of Columbia. Am't reductions, $37,499.54.... Writing up statement in reference to action of $3,749 95 50 00 40 00 To this declaration the plaintiff pleaded, to the first count, "nil debet," and to the second, "non assumpsit." Issue being joined, the parties went to trial. Whereupon, the plaintiff testified, inter alia, to his having been given by the defendant a power of attorney, dated February 18, 1875, authorizing plaintiff "To prosecute to final settlement, subject to my orders, all claims that I have or may have against the late Board of Public Works for damages and compensation on special improvements now pending before the Board of Audit, or that may hereafter be presented to said board." That on the 12th of November, 1878, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, notified the Commissioners of the District as follows: "Solomon J. Fague is my authorized attorney, to prosecute my claims for drawbacks for old material or over assessments on all my property in the District of Columbia, and also on Louise Home property." That the rate of compensation agreed on under the first power of attorney was "ten per centum of the amount that may be recovered or paid to the respective claimants." That plaintiff made measurements of streets and estimates of damages, and for old material, and filed claims in behalf of defendant before the Board of Audit, sworn to by the defendant. That the claims filed before said board for defendant for damages done to his property amounted to between $30,000 and $40,000, of which the sum of $400 was allowed before said board was abolished by act of Congress, approved March 14, 1876; and that claims filed by plaintiff for defendant for drawbacks for old material amounted to the sum of $33,000, but plaintiff did not know the amount recovered. That after the passage of the act of Congress, entitled, "An act to provide for the revision and correction of assessments for special improvements in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," approved June 19, 1878, plaintiff, as attorney for defendant, filed with the Commissioners of the District a claim or complaint under said act of Congress, for the revision and correction of assessments upon property belonging to defendant, said claim or complaint also showing the items of real estate owned by the defendant in the District. That in the matter of the abatement of taxation upon the "Louise Home" property, plaintiff, pursuant to the directions of defendant, presented a bill to the Congress of the United States for the exemption of said institution from taxation, which bill, after amendment, was passed. That plaintiff filed no affidavits under said act of Congress providing for revision, in his opinion none being necessary under the law, but made special statements orally or in writing. That the revision of the "Henry D. Cooke" assessments consisted in striking off two-thirds of the sum of the assessments. That to realize the credits on the "Emery" assessments an act must be passed by Congress, |