In re Sweeney

This is an application by James Sweeney, the beneficiary in a certain policy of insurance, to compel B-, an attorney, to deliver to the petitioner the policy in which he is named as beneficiary. Thomas J. Sweeney, the petitioner’s brother, was the insured, and on the. 28th day of August sustained injuries in a collision with a railroad train, from which he died the next day. The coroner took possession of the policy of insurance, together with certain other effects belonging to the deceased, and on the 2d day of September delivered the policy to the appellant. A motion was granted at Special Term requiring the appellant to turn over the policy to the petitioner, and from that order the attorney appeals. The attorney refuses to surrender the policy, except on payment of certain fees and charges which he claims he has earned and expended in connection with giving notice to the insurance company of the accident and death, and for proofs of loss which he procured and submitted to the company, upon which the claim was allowed. The petitioner makes the point in this court that the attorney has no lien upon the policy, and that consequently he is withholding it wrongfully, and that the order must be sustained. Such, however, is not the rule. It is the well settled law of this state that an attorney has a lien upon the securities of his client, which are in his hands, for services which he has rendered. In the Matter of H-, an Attorney, 87 N. Y. 521 ; In the Matter of the Application of Knapp, 85 N. Y. 284 ; Maxwell v. Cottle, 72 Hun, 529 , 25 N. Y. Supp. 635 ; McKibbin v. Nafis, 76 Hun, 344 , 27 N. Y. Supp. 723 . The inquiry, therefore, becomes whether the appellant has rendered any services for the petitioner upon his retainer, and whether the services are unpaid.

In his own affidavit opposing the motion the appellant recites in detail the services he rendered in obtaining correct and proper proofs of loss, such as the insurance company had indicated to him were necessary for an allowance of the claim under the policy. The services and the disbursements connected therewith are in no way disputed, and appear from his affidavit to have been considerable. He deposes, also, that at the time of the death of the insured one Decker, the coroner, took possession of the effects of the deceased, pending the appointment of an administrator; that among these effects was the policy in question; and on the 2d day of September, 1902, the petitioner and his sister, Mary E. Gracey, came to his office, and that there, in the presence of himself, the petitioner, and one Frank Fuller, the coroner delivered to Mary E. Gracey the effects of the deceased, among which was the policy of insurance; and that James Sweeney and Mary E. Gracey at that time directed deponent to prepare final proof of death, take all necessary proceedings, and incur all necessary expenses, and that they would see that deponent was reimbursed for his time and expenses. Appellant also presents the affidavits of Decker, the coroner, who delivered the policy, and of Frank Fuller. Each of them deposes that he was in appellant’s office at the time the coroner turned over the effects of the deceased to Mary E. Gracey, and that James Sweeney was present at that time — the 2d day of September, 1902; that both of the latter directed the coroner to deliver to the appellant the policy of accident insurance, and that they both instructed appellant to go on and complete proof of claim under the

We are of the opinion that their affidavits are entitled to much weight. We think that the character of the evidence adduced in opposition to this motion was such that there is a decided preponderance of proof that the appellant was instructed by Sweeney to perform these services. No claim is made that the appellant came into the possession of the policy surreptitiously or in a wrongful manner, and his possession of it is strong corroboration of his theory, and the facts which the disinterested witnesses have sworn to. The affidavits establish the fact that the appellant was employed by James Sweeney, and, in this view of the case, it matters not whether Sweeney or any one else, at the time of the employment, knew who the beneficiary was. It affirmativly appears that Sweeney did not revoke the appellant’s retainer when he was later advised that he himself was named as the beneficiary. We are not called upon to determine in this proceeding the amount of the attorney’s lien. It appears satisfactorily from the evidence that he has performed services for which he has not been paid, and he therefore has a lien upon the securities in his hands for the payment of his claim, the amount of which will be. determined and fixed in the proper proceeding therefor.

The order must therefore be reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with costs. All concur.