Crosby v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 10 May 1912
• Citation: 155 Iowa 312,135 N.W. 1079
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: CROSBY & FORDYCE v. HATCH.

155 Iowa 312

135 N.W. 1079

CROSBY & FORDYCE

v.HATCH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 10, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Linn County; Milo P. Smith, Judge.

In an action by plaintiffs against Alice Royder and Lester O. Hatch to recover attorney's fees and to enforce an attorney's lien in connection with a suit originally instituted by Alice Royder against said Hatch for damages for breach of promise of marriage, in which suit plaintiffs were the attorneys for Alice Royder, with a contract for a contingent fee of one-half “of the net recovery had or received,” either by settlement or otherwise, it appeared that a settlement had been made between Alice Royder and defendant, Hatch, in pursuance of which the sum of $1,500 was paid by defendant, Hatch, in full of the damages sustained by reason of the breach of promise, $200 of which amount was, by agreement, placed in the hands of a trustee, to be held until Alice Royder should settle with her attorneys. Thereupon the trial court held that plaintiffs, having given proper and sufficient notice of a lien in the action by Alice Royder against this defendant, were entitled to recover from defendant the amount due, under their contract with Alice Royder, as attorney's fees. Alice Royder made default, and judgment was rendered against her, from which no appeal has been taken; but defendant, Hatch, appeals from the judgment rendered against him under the claim of an attorney's lien, and he will be treated as the sole defendant. Affirmed.Voris & Haas, of Marion, for appellant.

Crosby & Fordyce, of Cedar Rapids, pro se.

McCLAIN, C. J.

It is conceded that under the contract between plaintiffs and Alice Royder plaintiffs became entitled to receive from her as attorney's fees one-half the amount recovered by her in her action against this defendant, or received by her under any settlement of the suit which she should make; and that a settlement was made, by which defendant paid $1,500 in settlement of the suit. It is also conceded that in said action, brought by Alice Royder against this defendant, plaintiffs, as attorneys, gave proper notice of a claim for attorney's fees on any judgment which should be recovered and upon any money due or owing to the plaintiff in that action from the defendant, specifying the lien as being “in the sum of $5,000 for services rendered and to be rendered.” It is also conceded that the settlement, in pursuance of which this defendant paid $1,500 in full of his liability to Alice Royder, was made without the knowledge or approval of these plaintiffs as her attorneys.

The provision in the Code, relating to attorney's lien, is as follows: “Sec. 321. An attorney has a lien for a general balance of compensation upon: * * * Money due his client in the hands of the adverse party * * * from the time of giving notice in writing to such adverse party * * * which notice shall state the amount claimed, and in general terms, for what services.”

[1] The contention for appellant is that, as plaintiffs did not give notice of the terms of their contract with Alice Royder, under which they were entitled to one-half the amount recovered or received by her in settlement, their lien, as against the appellant, should be limited to the amount of a reasonable compensation for services which had been performed by them at the time of settlement; and that such reasonable amount did not exceed the sum of $200, which had been placed in the hands of a trustee to secure appellant against any claim which plaintiffs might have against him under their lien. In the case of Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 56 Iowa, 720, 10 N. W. 244, it was held that under this statutory provision notice of a lien, given at the institution of a suit, is effectual to entitle the attorney to a lien against the defendant in the suit for any amount which may become due to the attorney from his client for his professional services; and that it is not necessary, in order to protect the attorney against a settlement between his client and the adverse party, that the notice specify the amount due; and that the adverse party, in making settlement with the client without consulting his attorney, becomes liable to the attorney for the amount of attorney's fees actually due. In Parsons v. Hawley, 92 Iowa, 175, 60 N. W. 520, it was held that the defendant is charged with notice of an attorney's lien properly given;...