Fox v. Fox
New York Supreme Court
Motion made on an order that the plaintiff show cause why he should not pay to Henry C. Adams, the attorney and counsel for the defendant in this action: 1st. The amount of the defendant’s taxed bill of costs and disbursements, as,the same were entered in the judgment in this action, together with the interest thereon from the date of the judgment, (July 24,1862.) 2d.
Read the full summary
Motion made on an order that the plaintiff show cause why he should not pay to Henry C. Adams, the attorney and counsel for the defendant in this action: 1st. The amount of the defendant’s taxed bill of costs and disbursements, as,the same were entered in the judgment in this action, together with the interest thereon from the date of the judgment, (July 24,1862.) 2d. The amount justly due to said Adams for his general services and disbursements rendered by him for his client, the defendant, as his attorney and counsel in this cause, as the same are specified or indicated in his bill against…
1Opinion of the Court
Bockes, Justice.
It. is well settled now that an attorney
has a lien on the judgment, obtained by him for his client, to the extent of his claim for services and disbursements in the action. To that extent he is to be deemed the equitable assignee of the judgment.
The law is so declared in Rooney agt. The Second Avenue R. R. Co., (18 N. Y. R., 368.) There are many other cases *415to the same effect in this court. (20 How., 39; 16 How., 160-173; 12 How., 136; see also 9 How., 16, and 14 Abb., 229, in N. Y. common pleas.)
The lien exists, too, whether the amount of the attorney’s compensation is agreed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dorsey v. PackwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Stuart v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- Renick v. LudingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Jones v. Duff Grain Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Porter v. ParmlyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875