Longworth v. Handy
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
General Term. — The plaintiff'as assignee of a judgment rendered in this court in favor of Henry Albro and against William and John H. Schergens, made his motion to amerce the defendant, attorney for Albro, for not paying over money collected by him on the judgment of Albro v. Sehergens. The motion was reserved to general term, to determine the questions of law arising upon the facts presented.
Read the full summary
General Term. — The plaintiff'as assignee of a judgment rendered in this court in favor of Henry Albro and against William and John H. Schergens, made his motion to amerce the defendant, attorney for Albro, for not paying over money collected by him on the judgment of Albro v. Sehergens. The motion was reserved to general term, to determine the questions of law arising upon the facts presented. They are thus stated: 1. Whether an attorney at law who has collected money by an action, in the prosecution of which he has rendered services, has a lien on the fund in his hands, and a right to…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
Since this proceeding has been commenced, the defendant, under an order of the court, has paid over to Long-worth the amount admitted to be due him, leaving still in his hands $180, claimed as his fee; and the cause awaits further order, and for the proper disposition thereof has been reserved for the settlement of the questions of law pertaining to it.
This proceeding is founded upon the sixth section of the act regulating the admission and practice of attorneys and counselors at law (3 Curwen, 2345), which reads as follows :
“ Every attorney receiving money for his client, and refusing or…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- President of the Michigan State Bank v. HastingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Pinder v. MorrisNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- In re KnabbPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Berks County · 1873