Downs v. Davis
Supreme Court of Iowa
-Appeal from Mahasha District Qourt. — Hon. John T. Scott, Judge. In the petition it is alleged that “your petitioner asks for 'a summary judgment and order against the defendant for $105, with interest and costs, and for cause thereof says,” (1) in substance, that the parties are attorneys at law, and as such entered into a contract with Mary Knudson to commence and prosecute bastardy proceedings against Joe Crookham, and to receive for their services 40 per cent, of the…
Read the full summary
-Appeal from Mahasha District Qourt. — Hon. John T. Scott, Judge. In the petition it is alleged that “your petitioner asks for 'a summary judgment and order against the defendant for $105, with interest and costs, and for cause thereof says,” (1) in substance, that the parties are attorneys at law, and as such entered into a contract with Mary Knudson to commence and prosecute bastardy proceedings against Joe Crookham, and to receive for their services 40 per cent, of the amount recovered in sii.it or by compromise; that they brought suit, claiming an attorney’s lien in the original notice,…
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
According to the allegations of the petition, both parties were employed as attorneys by Mary Knudson. She was their client, and the fee stipulated a part of the amount to be recovered. The defendant, in «.acting under her instructions, did not depend on plaintiff’s authority to settle; and the amount paid belonged to her, subject to the lien, if any, of the attorneys. Plaintiff merely told his associate and brother attorney in the action to retain his share of the fee for him. Nothing else. This involved no contract establishing the relation of attorney and client, *531and surely such a thing…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bowling Green Savings Bank v. . ToddNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Andalman v. FinneganIllinois Supreme Court · 1932
- Norman v. BennettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- Dorsey v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910