Boyle v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
| Decision Date | 07 December 1908 |
| Citation | 114 S.W. 558,134 Mo.App. 71 |
| Parties | L. C. BOYLE, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. Henry L. McCune, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Boyle Guthrie, Howell & Smith for appellant.
(1) The statute under which this action was instituted provides that "from the commencement of an action . . . the attorney . . has a lien upon his client's cause of action which attaches to a verdict . . . or judgment in his client's favor, and the proceeds thereof in whosoever hands they may come; and cannot be affected by any settlement between the parties before or after judgment." Laws 1901, p. 46. Curtis v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 341.
John H. Lucas for appellant.
The court erred in its finding for respondent, and in its refusal to declare that respondent could not recover. R. S. 1899, secs. 4937-1, 4937-2; Curtis v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 341; Wait v. Railroad, 204 Mo. 491; Taylor v. Transit Co., 198 Mo. 715; O'Connor v. Transit Co., 198 Mo. 622; Alexander v. Railway, 54 Mo.App. 66; Guarantee Co. v. Kansas City, 200 Mo. 159; Casey v. Transit Co., 116 Mo.App. 235; Eddington v. Telegraph Co., 115 Mo.App. 93; Mangold v. Railroad, 116 Mo.App. 606; Black v. Brittain, 116 Mo.App. 386; Kroeger v. Bohrer, 116 Mo.App. 208.
This is a suit to enforce an attorney's lien under the provisions of the statute. The facts of the case are as follows: One George D. Shultz was injured by the alleged negligence of the defendant, the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. He employed plaintiff Boyle, an attorney at law, to bring suit against the defendant for the damages he had sustained in consequence of the injury and agreed to pay him thirty per cent of the amount recovered by suit or otherwise. The suit was instituted by plaintiff July 1, 1902, and the cause was tried and judgment entered in favor of Shultz on July 30, 1903. From the judgment rendered against it, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and time was given for it to file bill of exceptions, until October 31, 1903. Previously on March 5, 1903, the plaintiff herein gave defendant notice of his lien for his fee secured to him by the statute. While the appeal was pending, Shultz negotiated a settlement with defendant and defendant paid him the sum of $ 600, in satisfaction of his judgment and he duly entered satisfaction thereof on the proper record. The plaintiff Boyle had no notice of the settlement at the time it was made and he did not give his assent to it.
The plaintiff included in his petition a cause of action to enforce his lien and one also for a cancellation of the satisfaction of the judgment. The court dismissed plaintiff's demand for equitable relief and gave him judgment for $ 180, thirty per cent of $ 600, the amount of said settlement, to which was added interest from March 15, 1904, at the rate of six per cent. From this judgment both plaintiff and defendant appealed.
There is nothing in the record to show that there was any fraud practiced by defendant to induce Shultz to make said settlement and satisfy the judgment. This case is in principle similar in every respect to that of Curtis v. Railway, 118 Mo.App. 341, wherein we held in an opinion by JOHNSON, J., that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial