Rowe v. Fogle
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 14 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT. Where the plaintiff dismisses his action without receiving any thing from the defendant, the attorney for the plaintiff has no lien for his fee, and can not look to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Case 14 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT. Where the plaintiff dismisses his action without receiving any thing from the defendant, the attorney for the plaintiff has no lien for his fee, and can not look to the defendant. (Gen. Stats., chap. 5,. art. 1, sec, 15; Evans v. Bell, 6 Dana, 480; Blwood v. Wilson, 21 Iowa, 527; Weeks on Attorneys at Law, sec. 379; Overton on the-Law of Liens, sec. 59; Wood v. Anders, 5 Bush, 602; Hutchinson v. Pettes, 18 Yt., 614; Platt v. Jerome, 19 How., 384; Brown v. Com-stock, 10 Barh., 68; Young v. Dearborn, 27 N. H., 324, 331; Simmons v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The lien asserted or allowed an attorney for his services in' this State is purely statutory. When the demand arises out of contract, and is placed in the hands of an attorney to be collected by suit or otherwise, the attorney has a lien ; or where the claim is reduced to judgment, whether in contract or for a tort, or the property is recovered, the attorney has his lien. (General Statutes, chapter 5, article 1, section 15.) The payment by the debtor to the creditor of a claim arising out of contract, with notice that it is in the hands of an…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Boyd v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
- Keehn v. KeehnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Holmes v. WaymireSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Nielsen v. City of Albert LeaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Charles v. WhittCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.