Randolph, Bowen & Co. v. Randolph
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Walker. Tried below before the Hon. N. H, Davis. The facts of the case are clearly stated in the opinion of the court. The professional relation between the garnishee and his client appears to have been still subsisting. On the answer of the garnishee the court below dismissed the proceeding against him, and this is assigned as error.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The question for our consideration here is one which has not been hitherto fairly decided by this court. In Able v. Lee, 6 Texas, 431, the court say : “ An attorney has a general lien for his professional dues on the papers of his client in his hands, and upon all moneys in his possession belonging to his *185client.” This doctrine is affirmed in Casey v. March, 30 Texas, 185.
When the relation of an attorney and client is dissolved, without the fault of the attorney, he is entitled to his whole fee (see Wambles v. Lindsay, decided at Austin term, 1869); and where the relation is dissolved by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baird v. RatcliffTexas Supreme Court · 1853
- Casey v. MarchTexas Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- Thomson v. Findlater Hardware Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Parker v. BoylesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- in Re 8650 Frisco, LLC D/B/A Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse, Mandona, LLC, Galovelho, LLC, Bahtche, LLC, Claudio Nunes and David Jeiel Rodrigues, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2015