Frissell v. Haile

• Decision Date: 31 March 1853
• Citation: Frissell v. Haile, 18 Mo. 18 (Mo. 1853)
• Parties: FRISSELL & JOHNSON, Appellants, v. HAILE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 Mo. 18

FRISSELL & JOHNSON, Appellants,

v.HAILE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1853.

1. Attorneys have no lien for their fees upon judgments recovered by them. The defendant will be protected in paying the money to the plaintiff in the judgment, notwithstanding he may have notice that the fees of the attorneys are unpaid.

2. A judgment debtor will be protected in paying to the plaintiff in the judgment, as against an assignee, who has given no notice of the assignment.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.

At the September term, 1849, of the Madison Circuit Court, a judgment was rendered in favor of Robert J. Hill and others against Thomas Haile, in an action of detinue, for certain slaves or their value, together with damages for the detention. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where a remittitur having been entered for the value of one of the slaves, the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. Johnson and Frissell, H. B. Scott, since deceased, and Hugh A. Garland, were attorneys of record for the plaintiffs in that suit. After the affirmance of the judgment, the defendant, Haile, paid $8,000 on it to Garland, and took his receipt therefor, and subsequently compromised the balance with the plaintiffs, and took their receipt acknowledging full satisfaction of the judgment. At the March term, 1852, he filed his motion in the Circuit Court to have the judgment entered satisfied, of which motion Johnson and Frissell, as attorneys of the plaintiffs were notified. When the motion came on to be heard, Haile produced the above mentioned receipts in evidence in support of it. At this stage of the proceedings, Johnson and Frissell, the former for himself and as administrator of H. B. Scott, filed their motion, supported by affidavits, to be made parties. This being allowed, they applied for a continuance, which was denied. They then offered in evidence an agreement with the plaintiffs in the suit of Hill and others v. Haile, by which they were to receive for their fees, as attorneys, all the damages that might be recovered in that suit; also, the following notice, which was served on Haile, after he had paid the $8,000 to Garland, and before he had settled the balance with the plaintiffs:

“Mr. Thomas Haile:

Sir: You are hereby notified that Mr. Hill and Mr. Bryan, on behalf of themselves and the other plaintiffs in the suit determined at the September term of the Circuit Court, 1849, at Fredericktown, Madison county, Missouri, against you, which decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, are indebted to us for fees in that case upwards of two thousand seven hundred dollars. You are, therefore, hereby cautioned to take notice of our rights in this matter, and pay to us the balance of the judgment, which has not been already paid to H. A. Garland. Respectfully,

M. FRISSELL,

THOS. C. JOHNSON,

THOS. C. JOHNSON,

Administrator of H. B. Scott, deceased.”

Upon this evidence the Circuit Court sustained the motion of Haile, and ordered the judgment to be entered satisfied. From this decision, Johnson and Frissell appealed.

Johnson, and Frissell, pro se.

I. The contract was not champertous, but a legal, valid contract which will be enforced. (Bayard v. McLane, 3 Harrington's Rep.)

II. The contract amounted to an assignment of the hire of the negroes, to be recovered in the form of damages. Courts of equity will protect assignees of a chose in action against parties who have notice of their rights.

III. The attorney has a lien upon the subject matter recovered by him, for his fees. Haile had notice of this lien, and made a fraudulent settlement with the plaintiffs to defraud the attorneys. The court should treat the settlement as a nullity, and require Haile to make payment to the right party. (Cross on Lien, Law Lib. p. 153; Bacon's Abridg. tit. Attorney.)

Glover & Campbell, for respondent.

I. Putting the contract on the ground of assignment, Johnson and Frissell cannot enforce their claim against the respondent, part of a judgment not being assignable, without the consent of the judgment debtor. (Love v. Fairfield, 13 Mo. 300.)

II. The appellants had no lien for their professional services on the money recovered, before the same came into their hands. (2 Kent, 640--1 [note a]; 12 Wend. 261; 11 Mass. 236; Baker v. Cook, 3 Watts. 357.)

III. Admitting they had a lien or an assignment, the respondent had no sufficient notice of that fact. The notice offered in evidence does not apprise him of any such claim.

IV. The contract is champertous and void. (4 Litt. 412; Love v. Fairfield, 13 Mo. 303; 9 Ala. 755; Wedon v. Wallace, 1...