Bishop v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis

Decision Date07 May 1912
Citation147 S.W. 170
PartiesBISHOP et al. v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.

Action by John E. Bishop and others against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action by plaintiffs to recover damages for the deforcement by defendant of their lien as attorneys upon their client's cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiffs had judgment, and the defendant has appealed. The facts are as follows: On January 16, 1907, one Mary Harrigan, having a cause of action against the defendant, commenced suit thereon in the circuit court. John J. O'Connor was the attorney who appeared for her then. As compensation for his services, he was to receive 40 per cent. of any amount recovered. He appeared as her attorney up to June 4, 1907, when she discharged him for alleged good cause, and caused a copy of the discharge (it being in writing) to be filed in court and noted on the record. Thereafter he did not appear. On the same day, by leave of court, the plaintiffs formally entered their appearance in said case as attorneys for Mary Harrigan, having been employed by her to act in that capacity under an agreement that they should be "paid a fee or compensation for their services herein rendered equal to one-half (½) of whatever sum the said Mary Harrigan shall realize or be paid or recover on said claim, whether the same be collected by suit, compromise or agreement, before or after judgment rendered." Thereafter they solely appeared in the case as such attorneys, making with counsel for defendant stipulations for continuances and filing a motion and a reply, etc. On October 28, 1907, while said case was still pending, undetermined, the defendant, dealing directly with Mary Harrigan, settled her cause of action by paying her $1,000, without the knowledge or consent of plaintiffs or of O'Connor. Plaintiffs have never been paid anything for their services; neither has O'Connor been paid anything for his. The trial was to the court, and the finding and judgment was in favor of the plaintiffs for $500.

Boyle & Priest, Morton Jourdan, T. M. Priest, and Paul U. Farley, all of St. Louis, for appellant. John E. Bishop, Thos. H. Cobbs, and Albert E. Hausman, all of St. Louis, for respondents.

CAULFIELD, J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. Defendant complains that in the single declaration of law given by the trial court the question of whether O'Connor was discharged for good cause was ignored. This question was properly ignored, as it concerned only O'Connor's right to compensation and his lien therefor, matters which have no relation to the controversy between the parties to this suit.

Plaintiffs claim their lien under section 964 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, the material parts of which are as follows: "The compensation of an attorney or counsellor for his services is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law. From the commencement of an action or the service of an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lawson v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1914
    ...which attaches to the judgment and the proceeds thereof in whosesoever hands they may come. Section 964, R. S. Mo. 1909; Bishop v. United Railways, 165 Mo. App. 226 loc. cit. 231, 147 S. W. 170. An attorney, either at the beginning or during the progress of the case, is within the purpose a......
  • Reed v. Reed
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1999
    ...her appearance and did the work which led to the judgment in favor of her client, Mr. Reed. Id.; Bishop v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 165 Mo. App. 226, 147 S.W. 170, 172 (1912). Ms. Day notes that her lien on the judgment in the dissolution action attached prior to the judgment in the co......
  • Riefling v. Juede
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1912
    ... ... 169] ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Moses N. Sale, ...          AFFIRMED ... ...
  • Downs v. Hodge
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1967
    ...which attaches to the judgment and the proceeds thereof in whosesoever hands they may come. Section 946, R.S.Mo.1909; Bishop v. United Railways, 165 Mo.App. 226, loc. cit. 231, 147 S.W. 170. An attorney either at the beginning or during the progress of the case, is within the purpose and pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT