Mansfield v. Dorland
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. This was a rule to show cause why the entry of satisfaction upon a judgment should not be set aside.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. This was a rule to show cause why the entry of satisfaction upon a judgment should not be set aside. The facts as set out in several affidavits upon which the rule waS founded, appear to be, that plaintiffs applied to Eli and Rankin, attorneys at law, to bring suit against the defendants, who agreed to commence and prosecute the same, the plaintiffs paying all disbursements, and further agreeing that if the cause should be decided in favour of plaintiffs, said attorneys were to receive the costs of said action, and a portion of the amount of…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydeheeldt, Justice
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court, setting aside the satisfaction of a judgment. In ex parte Kyle, 1 Cal. Rep. 331, this Court decided that an attorney has no lien upon a judgment recovered in favour of his client, as a compensation for his services. To this decision we give our approval; and where the plaintiff enters satisfaction of a judgment, the attorneys have no right to disturb it.
In the case presented by this record, there was no assignment of the judgment, and it is therefore unnecessary to 'consider what^would be the effect of an assignment.
Let the order of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex parte KyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gage v. AtwaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Renick v. LudingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Rosenberg v. LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Jackson v. CloptonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- McGown v. DalzellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.