Kaufman v. Keenan — 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 933

Majority

p. 933

David Kaufman, Resp't, v. John Keenan, App’lt.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed October 26, 1888.)

Headnote

1. Attorney’s lien—Attaches to judgment in favor of client—Code Civ, Pro., § 66.

From the commencement of an action an attorney has a lien for his services which attaches to a verdict or judgment in his client’s favor, and which cannot he discharged hy payment to any one hut the attorney.

2. Same—Record of judgment is notice to parties to action.

The record of the judgment is notice to all the parties to the action of the existence of the lien.

3. Same—Record of judgment for costs and disbursements is general NOTICE.

No notice of lien on a judgment which is exclusively for costs and disbursements is required, as the record itself is sufficient notice.

Appeal from an order made by Justice Nehrbas on April 19, 1888, granting a motion made by the attorney for the plaintiff to vacate and cancel the satisfaction, and discharge of the judgment entered herein on the fourth day of June, 1883, for the sum of $86.34-100, and restoring said judgment to its full force and effect.

A judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury in an action tried before Chief Justice McAdam and a jury in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed to the general term from said judgment, which judgment was affirmed on appeal, with costs to the plaintiff, which were taxed at the sum of $86.34-100, and judgment entered thereon on the fourth day of June, 1883.

On an ex-parte application, made by the attorney for the defendant, at the chambers of this court, an order was. granted cancelling said judgment for $86.34-100 costs.

A motion was subsequently made by plaintiff’s attorney, before Chief Justice McAdam, and an order granted, vacating said satisfaction of judgment.

On the 13th of December, 1887, a motion was made by defendant’s attorney, before Chief Justice McAdam, to set off another judgment obtained by other parties in another court, against the judgment for $86.34-100, which motion was denied.

A motion was then made by plaintiff’s attorney, on notice before Justice Nehrbas, on the 19th day of April, 1888, and an order granted by said justice, vacating and cancelling the satisfaction piece, and discharge executed by the plaintiff, on March 23, 1888, of the said judgment, for the sum of $86.34-100, entered in this action on the fourth day of June, 1883, and restoring said judgment to its full force and effect, and directing the clerk of this court, to cancel the satisfaction and discharge of said judgment, upon the docket of judgments in his office, and further ordering “ that only the

p. 934

plaintiff’s attorney, Frederick Hemming, or the assignee of said attorney, or duly authorized agent shall satisfy said judgment.”

The defendant’s attorney appeals from said order.

Joseph F. Newburger, for appl’t; Frederick Hemming, for resp’t.

The judgment for $86.34-100, in favor of the plaintiff herein, and which was satisfied of record on June 4, 1883, by the said plaintiff, was a judgment exclusively for the costs and disbursements of the said plaintiff, on appeal by defendant, and on affirmance by the general term, of the judgment rendered hérein on the trial, before Chief Justice McAdam, and such judgment being for costs alone, was legal notice of the lien of the plaintiff’s attorney thereon. Crotty v. McKenzie, 42 N. Y. Sup’r Ct. R. 192.

An attorney has a lien for his services, from the commencement of an action, which attaches to a verdict * * * or judgment in his client’s favor, * * * and cannot be affected, by any settlement between the parties, before or after judgment. Code Civ. Pro., sec. 66.

And no notice of lien on a judgment, which is exclusively for costs and disbursements, is required, as the record itself is sufficient notice of lien. Wright v. Fleming, 10 W. Digest, 450.

The record of the judgment is notice to all the parties to the action, of the existence of such lien. Lesher et al. v. Boessner, 3 Hun, 217 .

And such lien cannot be discharged by payment to any one but the attorney. Marshall v. Meech, 51 N. Y., 143 .

Besides, the rights of the plaintiff’s attorney in the judgment for $86.34-100 were passed upon by Chief Justice McAdam;, on December 14, 1887, in Kaufman v. Keenan, 13 N. Y. Civ. Pro. R. 226, in which it was held, that the judgment for costs, $86.34-100 was owned by the plaintiff’s attorney.

The order made therein, not having been vacated, Pitshke, J., concurs.