Young v. Renshaw
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». S. P. Spencer, Judge. (1) Before the statute, attorneys had no lien. Frissell v. Haile, 18 Mo. 18; Roberts v. Nelson, 22 Mo. App. 28; Alexander v. Railroad, 54 Mo. App. 66; Grulick v. Pluntley, 144 Mo. 241. (2) Under the statute; the lien is only upon the claim, or cause of action, or upon the proceeds of any settlement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». S. P. Spencer, Judge. (1) Before the statute, attorneys had no lien. Frissell v. Haile, 18 Mo. 18; Roberts v. Nelson, 22 Mo. App. 28; Alexander v. Railroad, 54 Mo. App. 66; Grulick v. Pluntley, 144 Mo. 241. (2) Under the statute; the lien is only upon the claim, or cause of action, or upon the proceeds of any settlement. Laws 1901, p. 46, sec. 2. (3) Under the statute the attorney can look only to his client, or to the defendant, who settles the claim in defiance of notice. (4) The statutes of New York, upon which section 1 of the act of 1901…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts as above).— 1. In 1901, the Legislature passed the following act:
“Section 1. The compensation of an attorney or counselor for his service is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law. Prom the commencement of an action or the services of an answer containing' a counterclaim, the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, decision or judgment in his client’s favor, and the proceeds thereof in whosoever hands they may come; and can not be effected…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Williams v. . IngersollNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- President of the Michigan State Bank v. HastingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Weeks v. Wayne Circuit JudgesMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Frissell & Johnson v. HaileSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Mosely & Eley v. NormanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Wait v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Curtis v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Mills v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- O'Connor v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Taylor v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.