Geeen v. Brengle

• Decision Date: 10 May 1888
• Citation: 84 Va. 913,6 S.E. 603
• Parties: Geeen et al. v. Brengle.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

6 S.E. 603

(84 Va. 913)

Geeen et al.

v.Brengle.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

May 10, 1888.

1. Judgment—Payment of Amount Due—Effect of Subsequent Reversal.

Where a judgment is collected and paid over to the attorneys who prosecuted the suit, and disposed of by them under the direction of their client, an action will not lie, after the reversal of the judgment, against the attorneys to recover back the money paid by one of the defendants, who has never appealed, or made demand for its return, until after reversal of the decree.

2. Same—Payment of Money Judgment—Subsequent Reversal—Right of Debtor.

The remedy of a defendant against whom a judgment is collected is by rule or petition in the original suit to compel the plaintiff to refund the money, or show that it is actually due him from defendant.

3. Assumpsit—Privity to Support—Payment to Judgment Creditor's Attorney.

No privity exists between the attorney who prosecuted a suit, and the defendant therein, to support an action of assumpsit for the recovery of a money judgment paid by defendant, and received by the attorneys as the property of their client.

Appeal from corporation court of Danville.

Action in assumpsit by "W. D. Brengle against Green & Miller, attorneys, to recover a money judgment obtained in an action between this plaintiff and attorneys' client. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Christian & Christian and W. W. & B. T. Crump, for plaintiffs in error.

Williams & Bro., for defendant in error.

Fauntleroy, J. The petition of Green & Miller represents that they are aggrieved by a judgment of the corporation court of Danville, entered at its April term, 1887, in an action at law therein pending between W. D. Brengle, plaintiff, and Green & Miller, defendants. The record presents for review by this court the following case: The chancery cause of 67. T. Griggs, Adm'r for, etc., v. Hairston's Legatees, etc., was removed from the circuit court of Henry county to the corporation court of Danville in March, 1881. The complainant in that suit, G. T. Griggs, administrator, etc., was represented in all proceedings in said suit in the corporation court of Danville and in the supreme court of appeals by Green & Miller, attorneys, under a contract that he (Griggs, administrator for, etc.) would pay to them for their services liberal fees out of the first moneys recovered and collected in that suit. The appellee, W. D. Brengle, with others, defendants in that suit, filed his answer to thebill, and resisted the entry of any decree in May, 1881. There was, however, a decree in May, 1881, against the defendants for sundry sums, amounting in all, principal and interest, to more than $12,000, of which more than $10,000 was against solvent defendants. At the June term, 1881, of the said corporation court of Danville, W. D. Brengle and others, defendants, filed their petition for rehearing, and annulling the said decree of May, 1881, which said petition was dismissed June 22, 1881; and on the same day, at the instance of W. D. Brengle and others, the suspension of the execution of the said decree of May, 1881, was extended to W. D. Brengle for the period of 30 days from this date; but no appeal was then, or at any time thereafter, ever taken by said Brengle. On the 18th of August, 1881, after the said period of 30 days had long passed, an execution was issued against the said W. D. Brengle and wife and William Martin, under the said decree of May, 1881, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Henry county; which was by the said sheriff levied on the property of the said W. D. Brengle, October 1, 1881. On or about 26th of October, 1881, said W. D. Brengle offered to compromise his liability under the said decree of May, 1881; which said offer being rejected by Green & Miller, attorneys for the complainant, for and in behalf of their client, the said W. D. Brengle paid to the sheriff of Henry county the amount of the said execution, November 9, 1881. The sheriff, after deducting commissions, etc., paid the residue, $717.05, to Green & Miller, attorneys for the complainant, G. T. Griggs, administrator, etc., and nothing further was heard from said Brengle until some time in 1886. After the collection of the said sum of $717.05 under the said decree of May, 1881, in favor of G. T. Griggs, the complainant in the said chancery cause of G. T. Griggs, Adm'r, etc., v. Hairston's Legatees, etc., Green & Miller, attorneys for the said complainant, G. T. Griggs, administrator, etc., were expressly instructed by him (their said client) to pay the costs of the said chancery suit, and their own fees as his attorneys, out of the collection then in hand, and to hold the residue thereof, with other anticipated collections under the said heavy decree of May, 1881, until the court could distribute the same among the claimants represented by G. T. Griggs, administrator, etc.; and accordingly they (the said Green & Miller) did so apply the said collection, leaving a balance of $101.70 in their hands to the credit of...