Fannon v. Le Beau
| Decision Date | 04 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 116.,116. |
| Citation | 245 Mich. 162,222 N.W. 115 |
| Parties | FANNON v. LE BEAU et al. In re LA JOIE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Guy A. Miller, Judge.
In the matter of the petition of Ernest P. La Joie for an attorney's lien, and determination of and decree for attorney's fees in action by John Fannon against Charles H. Le Beau and others. From an order adjudging that the fee should be lien on the funds in the hands of the receiver. Le Beau appeals. Amount of fee reduced, and fee decreed to be lien on assets in receiver's hands.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except CLARK, J. David L. Shangle, of Detroit, for appellant Le Beau.
Ernest P. La Joie, of Detroit, in pro. per.
The petitioner, Ernest P. La Joie, seeks to have determined the amount of his fee for professional services rendered to Charles H. Le Beau, herein called the defendant, and to have the same declared to be a lien upon funds in the hands of the receiver heretofore appointed in this cause. The facts involved in the main case will be found in Fannon v. Le Beau, 238 Mich. 376, 213 N. W. 87. Le Beau appealed from the decree entered in the circuit court in the original case. After the record had been prepared and filed in the Supreme Court, it developed that the attorney to whom Le Beau had looked to brief and present the case on appeal would not be able to do so because of ill health. Less than a week before the case was to be submitted to the Supreme Court, Le Beau asked the petitioner to prepare a brief and argue the appeal. At first the petitioner declined to undertake the task on the ground that there was not sufficient time within which to examine the record and prepare a brief; but, upon being asked again on the following day, the attorney decided he would accept the undertaking. By devoting his time exclusively to this one matter, and by working more than the usual hours per day, the petitioner succeeded in preparing the brief for the Supreme Court in about three days, and it was printed and filed in time to preserve to the appellant the right of an oral argument in this court, and such an argument was made in his behalf by the petitioner. After the announcement of a decision favorable to his client, the petitioner and Le Beau had some talk about the former's compensation, and Le Beau was then told that the attorney proposed to charge him $5,000 for the services rendered. They were unable to agree, and thereupon this petition was filed. After a hearing in the circuit court, the petitioner's fee was fixed at $4,500, and an order entered that the same should be a lien upon the funds in the hands of the receiver. Le Beau has appealed from this order, and insists (1) that the trial court was without power to decree the petitioner's fee to be a lien upon the funds in the hands of the receiver, and (2) that the amount of the fee awarded was excessive.
I. Did the court have the right to decree the petitioner's fee to be a lien upon the funds possessed by the receiver? It is rightly stated in appellant's brief:
‘An attorney may have a special lien upon a fund in court or in the hands of a receiver, recovered by him, and a court of equity having such funds in its possession, will protect the attorney in retaining out of it a reasonable compensation for his services.’
It is urged that the petitioner herein did not recover any portion of the funds in the hands of the receiver; but, instead, all of the assets of the receivership were in the possession of the receiver before the petitioner was identified with the case in any way. While this is true, under the decree rendered in the circuit court the receiver was holding assets in excess of $20,000 for the purpose of accounting to the adverse party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kysor Indus. Corp. v. D.M. Liquidating Co.
...no comparable Michigan cases involving retaining liens, the equivalent disposition has been made of charging liens. Fannon v. LeBeau (1928), 245 Mich. 162 (222 N.W. 115); Jones v. Dickerman (1893), 95 Mich. 289 (54 N.W. 876). In Wipfler v. Warren, supra, a receiver Pendente lite held certai......
-
In re Ashley
...at 319; Fraam v. Kelley, supra, 268 Mich. at 576, 256 N.W. 552; see 4B Collier on Bankruptcy § 70.872 (14th ed. 1898); Fannon v. LeBeau, 245 Mich. 162, 222 N.W. 115 (1928). Since the fund obtained in Yermakov was not created substantially by the services of the attorney, a charging lien nev......
-
Shank v. Lippman
...115 Mich. 669, 74 N. W. 185;Dreiband v. Candler, 166 Mich. 49, 131 N. W. 129;Nichols v. Waters, 201 Mich. 27, 167 N. W. 1;Fannon v. LeBeau, 245 Mich. 162, 222 N. W. 115; 6 C. J. p. 766. Defendant contends the attorneys' lien on the Shank judgment was ineffective here because his liability t......
-
McGraw v. Lake Tp.
...v. Richardson, 69 Mich. 430, 37 N. W. 514;Sleator v. Richardson, 69 Mich. 478, 37 N. W. 536; Fry v. Montague, supra; Fannon v. LeBeau, 245 Mich. 162, 222 N. W. 115; Behr v. Baker, supra. Nevertheless, we do not disturb the findings of the trial court regarding the amount of the damages unle......