Friedman v. Harris, 9231.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 9231.,9231. |
| Citation | 158 F.2d 187,81 US App. DC 317 |
| Parties | FRIEDMAN v. HARRIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Arthur L. Willcher, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Stanley H. Kamerow, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Annie Harris.
No appearance for appellee Washington Terminal Company.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and CLARK, Associate Justices.
Appellee Harris was seriously injured by alleged negligence of appellee Washington Terminal Company. Harris afterwards signed an agreement to employ appellant Friedman as her attorney and to pay him one-third of "the sum allowed or recovered." Appellant filed suit for Harris against the Terminal Company, which answered. Other attorneys, Kamerow and Doherty, moved on behalf of Harris to dismiss the suit, on the ground that Friedman was not authorized to file it. Appellant opposed this motion and also moved for leave to intervene in the suit. Depositions and affidavits which were filed make it plain that Harris then wished to be represented by Kamerow and Doherty and not by appellant, but are in conflict as to whether Harris' dismissal of appellant occurred before or after he filed the suit. The validity of Harris' original employment of appellant is also in dispute. The District Court, without giving appellant an opportunity to present oral testimony, denied his motion for leave to intervene and granted Harris' motion to dismiss the complaint.
Appellee contends that an attorney has no lien for his charges before judgment. But this court has held that during the progress of a suit an attorney of record under a contingent fee contract has an "interest in the cause of action." Kellogg v. Winchell, 51 App.D.C. 17, 20, 273 F. 745, 748, 16 A.L.R. 1159. He may intervene to protect this interest and after judgment "the lien * * * relates back and takes effect from the time of the commencement of the suit." Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly, 70 App.D.C. 320, 322, 106 F.2d 841, 843. If Harris dismissed appellant before he filed the suit appellant has no lien and no right to intervene. Cf. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 143 App.Div. 172, 127 N.Y.S. 1065; Woodbury et al. v. Andrew Jergens Co. et al., 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 49. In that case his only claim is to recover in a separate suit the value of his services. But if appellant had appellee's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elam v. Monarch Life Ins. Co.
...in the contract specifically providing for payment out of the fund recovered, as required by Thurston. See Friedman v. Harris, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 158 F.2d 187 (1946) (attorney has lien for value of services where contract provides for one-third of "`the sum allowed or recovered'"); Contin......
-
Monarch Life Ins. Co. v. Elam
...the court found an interest to support intervention and a lien, both apparently on the strength of Kellogg. See also Friedman v. Harris, 81 App.D.C. 317, 158 F.2d 187 (1946) (following Continental Casualty ). That the two interests should march arm-in-arm seems inevitable, as the right to i......
-
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
...] back to the inception of the action." Martens v. Hadley Memorial Hosp. , 753 F.Supp. 371 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing Friedman v. Harris , 158 F.2d 187 (D.C. Cir. 1946) ; accord , Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly , 106 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1939) ). The D.C. Circuit has also recognized a "continu......
-
Martens v. Hadley Memorial Hosp.
...has held that a charging lien arises out of the underlying action and relates back to the inception of the action. Friedman v. Harris, 158 F.2d 187 (D.C.Cir.1946); accord, Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly, 106 F.2d 841 (D.C. Our Circuit has recognized that: An attorney retained in a true c......