Smith v. Central Trust Co.
New York Surrogate's Court
On the return day of the citation in this matter, Smith & Randall, attorneys' at law, represented that they had acted as such for Barnard R. Guión and Mary T. Van Voorhis, legatees, on an accounting of the executor (since resigned) of the will of decedent, in which a decree was entered in 1882 (see 1 Dem.P 306); that, as such attorneys, they had a lien upon the amounts of the respective legacies of said Guión and Mrs. Van Voorhis, as determined by the decree, over and above…
Read the full summary
On the return day of the citation in this matter, Smith & Randall, attorneys' at law, represented that they had acted as such for Barnard R. Guión and Mary T. Van Voorhis, legatees, on an accounting of the executor (since resigned) of the will of decedent, in which a decree was entered in 1882 (see 1 Dem.P 306); that, as such attorneys, they had a lien upon the amounts of the respective legacies of said Guión and Mrs. Van Voorhis, as determined by the decree, over and above the amount of the costs allowed to their clients as fixed thereby, to the extent of $1,000, of which they had given the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
It does not seem that,, at common law, an attorney had a lien upon the judgment recovered by him for his client, for his costs and compensation. Such lien was established by the courts *77as an equitable principle, for the protection of their officers. In the time of Lord Mansfield, the rule was not then of ancient origin. It has been followed by our courts, consistently, down to the adoption of our Code of practice, when it was enacted that the compensation of an attorney should be governed by the agreement, express or implied, with the client. This provision induced a decision by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coughlin v. . N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Chapman v. . GatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Wright v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Haight v. HolcombNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Ward v. WordsworthNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1852