Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Rauber
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 15, 1923Published
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The plaintiff’s attorneys had a statutory lien on Hamilton’s cause of action. Jud. Law, § 475, and cases cited; Matter of Heinsheimer, 214 N. Y. 361. He could not discontinue the action or compromise it and thus defeat the lien. If it were discontinued without payment to him of anything, they could still prosecute the action to determine their hen. If he made a settlement (Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 49 App. Div. 22), the hen would attach to the amount of the settlement and might be asserted against third parties who paid in settlement knowing of the hen. Fischer-Hansen v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fischer-Hansen v. . Bklyn. Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Matter of HeinsheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Peri v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Maier v. Maze Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919