Farrin v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 25 June 1912
• Parties: FARRIN et al. v. MATTHEWS et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

124 P. 675

62 Or. 517

FARRIN et al. v. MATTHEWS et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 25, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coos County; John S. Coke, Judge.

Action by E.L.C. Farrin and another against William C. Matthews and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendant named appeals. Reversed and rendered.

This cause was submitted on briefs without oral argument. It appears by the complaint, in substance, that the plaintiffs attorneys at law, were employed by the Belt Line Railway Company, a corporation, to conduct litigation against one Eckhoff for the purpose of decreeing the corporation to be the owner of certain lands in question here and for other relief. It is said in the complaint "that the said defendant, Belt Line Railway Company, then agreed to and with the said plaintiffs that, as and for compensation, and as and for the sole compensation of said plaintiffs for their services as such attorneys in the bringing of said suit, and in the conducting of the litigation involved therein, it would, in the event of the successful determination of said suit, convey to the said plaintiffs an undivided one-half interest in and to all lands and moneys recovered in said suit." It further appears in the complaint that the plaintiffs accepted the employment, and were successful in securing a decree in favor of the corporation to the effect that it was the owner of the property, and requiring Eckhoff and his wife to convey the land by good and sufficient deeds or that, in default thereof, the decree should stand instead of a conveyance, unless it was executed and delivered within 30 days from the date of the decree. Although the suit against Eckhoff was ended in the circuit court January 16 1909, no appeal has ever been taken in that matter. The plaintiffs allege that they fully complied with the terms of their contract with the corporation so as to become entitled to the conveyance to them of an undivided one-half interest in the land mentioned. They further say that on February 15 1909, they served on Eckhoff a notice of lien upon the decree against him to secure them for their compensation. The notice is set out in the complaint, being directed to Eckhoff, and reading thus: "You are hereby notified that we have and claim a lien upon the judgment heretofore obtained by the Belt Line Railway Company against Charles Eckhoff and Charlotte Eckhoff in the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Coos county, and the property therein described in the above-entitled suit, which said judgment was filed and entered in said court and cause on the 16th day of January 1909. The said claim amounts to an undivided one-half interest in the said judgment and decree and the property described therein, and is for fees due from said Belt Line Railway Company to us for services rendered and performed in said suit, and you will please reserve the above amount in any settlement of said judgment, otherwise we shall hold you liable therefor," which notice was signed by the plaintiffs here, and was filed with the clerk of the circuit court on February 16, 1909. Alleging that, although often requested to do so, the Belt Line Railway Company has refused to convey to the plaintiffs the undivided half interest in the land, and that the other defendants have, or claim to have, some interest in the property adverse to plaintiffs, but that the same is subject and subsequent to the lien of plaintiffs, the complaint concludes with a prayer to the effect that the plaintiffs be decreed to have a lien upon the lands to the extent of an undivided half interest therein; that the defendant Belt Line Railway Company be required to execute and deliver to them a good and sufficient conveyance of an undivided moiety of the land; and, further, that the other defendants be barred and foreclosed from asserting any right or interest in or to the land, except an undivided half interest therein in common with the plaintiffs. The defendant Matthews answered, denying the making of the contract between plaintiffs and the Belt Line Railway Company for their compensation in the litigation mentioned, and otherwise denied the material allegations of the complaint, and asserted title in himself by mesne conveyances from the Belt Line Railway Company. There were other affirmative defenses set up in the answer of Matthews which are deemed negligible for the purposes of this opinion. The reply traversed the answer of Matthews. The...