Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Winkler 131 N.Y.S. 124

← Cases

In re Winkler

131 N.Y.S. 124 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1911-10-13 English

Contents

Majority

p. 124
In re WINKLER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 13, 1911.)

Headnote

Attorney and Client (§ 192*)—Enforcement of Attorney’s Lien—Parties.
Where, in proceedings to determine and enforce an attorney’s lien, a referee is appointed to take proof as to the value of the property which was the subject of the controversy of the action, in which the attorney rendered services, the attorney should bring into the proceedings both parties to the action prior to the first hearing before the referee.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Dec. Dig. § 192.[1] ]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Application of Max H. Winkler, an attorney, to determine and enforce his attorney’s lien. From an order appointing a referee to hear and determine, the party aggrieved appeals. Modified and affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, MCLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and MILLER, JJ.
M. Mackenzie, for appellant.
Frederick H. Sanborn, for respondent.

The order should be modified by striking out the first clause, which orders that the value of the property in controversy in the action of Sophie Nugent, plaintiff, against the Onward Construction Company, defendant, be, and it hereby is, fixed, at $8,000, and that the petitioner is adjudged to have a lien upon said action for his compensation; and by inserting in lieu thereof a clause “that the petitioner bring into this proceeding Sophie Nugent, the plaintiff, before the first hearing before the referee; and that the referee also take proof as to the value of the property which was the subject of the controversy; and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed without costs.