Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching Co.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 434 |
| Citation | 65 So. 61,186 Ala. 117 |
| Parties | FULLER v. LANETT BLEACHING CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Action by J.K. Fuller against the Lanett Bleaching Company for damages for personal injury. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed, and, pending the appeal the cause of action was settled by the parties. Motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal denied, and counter motion of appellant's counsel to intervene to prosecute the appeal granted.
On reaching this court, the appeal was submitted, and the appellee filed a motion to set aside the submission and dismiss the appeal because of the fact that, after the appeal was taken, plaintiff and defendant compromised and settled the claim; the defendant paying the plaintiff the sum of $200 in full accord and satisfaction, releasing and forever discharging defendant from any and all actions, causes or causes of action, claims and demands in consequence of the injuries suffered. This accord was in writing and executed on February 21, 1912. Attorneys for appellant resisted the motion, and asked to intervene for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal, setting up a lien and an interest under the statute in the suit pending. In response to these several applications and motions, the following opinion was written.
Charlton E. Battle, of Columbus, Ga., and N.D. Denson, of Opelika, for appellant.
Strother Hines & Fuller, of La Fayette, for appellee.
Subdivision 2 of section 3011 of Code 1907, the constitutionality of which is not assailed by counsel, reads as follows "Upon suits, judgments, and decrees for money, they shall have a lien superior to all liens but tax liens, and no person shall be at liberty to satisfy said suit, judgment, or decree, until the lien or claim of the attorney for his fees is fully satisfied; and attorneys at law shall have the same right and power over said suits, judgments and decrees, to enforce their liens, as their clients had or may have for the amount due thereon to them."
This is a literal reproduction of a Georgia statute which, at the time of adoption in this state, had been often construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and which said construction is at least persuasive that our Legislature intended to adopt it as construed in the jurisdiction from which it was borrowed.
"As attorneys at law have a lien for their fees upon all suits brought by them, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.
... ... interest therein is concerned. Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching ... Co., 186 Ala. 117, 65 So. 61; Harton v. Amason, supra ... The same rule ... ...
-
Ex parte Ashton
... ... States. 25 Alabama and Southern Digest, Statutes, k 226; ... Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching Co., 186 Ala. 117, 65 So ... 61; Steagall v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron ... ...
-
Gulf States Steel Co. v. Justice
...2 of this statute that it-- "was construed in the case of Fuller v. Lanett Cotton Mills, 190 Ala. 208, 65 So. 61 [meaning Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching Co., 186 Ala. 117]. that case the settlement was made pending the appeal to this court, and it was ruled that plaintiff's attorney had a right......
-
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Martin
... ... (Italics ours.) Galloway ... Coal Co., v. Stanford, 215 Ala. 79, 109 So. 377. In ... Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching Co., 186 Ala. 117, 65 So ... 61, Chief Justice Anderson wrote concerning the ... ...