Grant v. Hazeltine
Superior Court of New Hampshire
It is an unsettled question in this state whether an attorney has a lien for his cost. But if he has, it cannot prevail against the defendant, unless he notfies the de», fendant before a settlement with the plaintiff, that he intend» to insist upon his lien. This was trover for a horse.
Read the full summary
It is an unsettled question in this state whether an attorney has a lien for his cost. But if he has, it cannot prevail against the defendant, unless he notfies the de», fendant before a settlement with the plaintiff, that he intend» to insist upon his lien. This was trover for a horse. At the trial here, April term, 1822, on the general issue, it appeared in evidence, that one Joseph Grant employed the defendant, an attorney of this court, to bring an action of as-sumpsit against the present pía in till. The action was com menced, but before being entered, the parties to it settled, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
It is unnecessary to settle the question, which has not yet been adjudged in this state to our knowledge, whether an attorney has a lien upon claims lodged with him for collection. For, on the hypothesis, that he has such a lien as exists in England, the facts In the present case would not justify the proceedings on the part of the defendant. As a general principle, an attorney there cannot maintain a lien against the defendant, unless he notify the defendant of his design before the defendant makes a settlement with the plaintiff. Tidd 287.—6 D. & E. 361.—1 East 464.—3 Caines 165, Pindar vs.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shapley v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1828
- Dennett v. CuttsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Young v. DearbornSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853