Quincey v. Francis
New York Supreme Court
Motion by defendants to discontinue action. The action was by William H. Quincey against John M. Francis and another, for libel. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Vorst, J.
The cause of action was not attempted to be assigned by the plaintiff to his attorney. The action, being for a libel, was not assignable (Townshend on Slander and Libel, § 299 ; Pulver v. Harris, 52 N. Y. 73); but the attorney served on the defendants’ attorneys a notice that he had a lien on the cause of áction set forth in the complaint, and that any settlement without his written consent would be of no effect.
As a rule, an attorney has a lien for his costs upon any judgment obtained through his services, and which lien the court will protect against any unfair dealing by the client, with…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pulver v. . HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
3Cited by6 opinions
- National Exhibition Co. v. CraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Kusterer v. City of Beaver DamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- McCabe v. FoggThe Superior Court of New York City · 1880
- Whittaker v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R.The Superior Court of New York City · 1886
- Howitt v. MerrillNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.