## Facts

- Robert B. Troutman, Jr., an Atlanta attorney, performed services for Southern Railway Company in two matters; only the “grain rate” matter remained on appeal.
- In 1963, the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered Southern to increase certain grain shipping rates by about 16%, which Southern claimed threatened a major investment in specialized grain cars and substantial future revenue.
- Southern planned to challenge the ICC order in federal court in Ohio and sought executive-branch support against the ICC.
- Southern’s vice president asked Troutman—who had relationships enabling access to senior executive officials—to present Southern’s position to the President and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
- Troutman obtained access to officials and made substantive presentations that the ICC order was contrary to the national interest and should be opposed.
- DOJ ultimately filed a position in the Ohio litigation opposing the ICC and supporting Southern; the ICC order was later struck down.
- Troutman alleged Southern agreed to compensate him through a contemplated joint air-rights development involving Troutman’s property; the development never occurred.
- Troutman then sought payment for the reasonable value of his services; Southern refused, asserting the arrangement was unenforceable as a contract for improper political influence.
- Troutman sued in diversity, seeking quantum meruit compensation; a jury awarded $175,000 for the grain rate matter.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement is void as against public policy when it contemplates influencing public officials through personal or political influence rather than persuasion on the merits.
2. Whether the evidence required a finding, as a matter of law, that Troutman was hired primarily to exert personal and political influence, making his compensation claim unenforceable.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Southern’s motions to take the case from the jury (directed verdict/judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Troutman on the jury’s $175,000 verdict.
- The court accepted the general rule that “influence contracts” are illegal when they contemplate personal or political pressure rather than merits-based advocacy.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find Troutman was retained to obtain access and to present Southern’s position on the merits to executive officials, not to secure action through improper influence.
- Because the legality characterization turned on disputed facts and the record supported the jury’s view, the district court properly submitted the case to the jury and properly denied post-trial relief.

## Legal Principles

- A contract to influence a public official in the exercise of official duties is illegal and unenforceable when it contemplates the use of personal or political influence rather than an appeal to the official’s judgment on the merits.
- It is permissible to retain an agent or attorney to obtain access to public officials and to present and advocate the client’s position on the merits; payment for such services is not barred by public policy.
- When the evidence permits competing characterizations of the engagement (improper influence versus lawful advocacy), the classification is generally a question for the factfinder; a verdict will stand if supported by sufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Troutman’s quantum meruit recovery because, although contracts premised on personal or political pressure on officials are unenforceable, the jury could reasonably find Troutman provided lawful access-seeking and merits-based advocacy to executive officials rather than selling improper influence.


Troutman v. S. Ry. Co., 441 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1971)