Canary v. Russell
New York Supreme Court
Motion to enforce an attorney’s lien. In this action a settlement was made between the parties, by which the payment of $17,500 was guaranteed to the plaintiffs, besides a certain percentage on the gross receipts of defendant Russell’s performances, which might increase the amount of the settlement to $28,000. Plaintiffs’ attorney claimed $7,975 for legal services rendered in this and thirteen other actions, and moved in this action for a determination by the court of the…
Read the full summary
Motion to enforce an attorney’s lien. In this action a settlement was made between the parties, by which the payment of $17,500 was guaranteed to the plaintiffs, besides a certain percentage on the gross receipts of defendant Russell’s performances, which might increase the amount of the settlement to $28,000. Plaintiffs’ attorney claimed $7,975 for legal services rendered in this and thirteen other actions, and moved in this action for a determination by the court of the amount of his lien. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the following grounds: (a) That they were entitled to a trial by…
1Opinion of the CourtGayitor, J.
The lien of attorneys upon judgments recovered by them, and the proceeds thereof, did not have its origin in any statute. It grew out of the relation of attorney and client, and the injustice of allowing a client to take the proceeds of his attorney’s work and skill without paying him therefor. As was said in one case, the lien was invented to protect attorneys from the knavery of clients. The method of enforcing the lien was by a proceeding in the action itself. The money was required to be paid into court, and was held until the amount due to the attorney was ascertained and paid thereout.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Weicher v. CargillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Clarke v. HarrisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921