Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v. Crosby

• Decision Date: 10 June 1913
• Docket Number: 4,696.
• Citation: 78 S.E. 612,12 Ga.App. 750
• Parties: GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. CROSBY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

78 S.E. 612

12 Ga.App. 750

GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. CROSBY.

No. 4,696.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

June 10, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

After suit has been filed upon a cause of action, the suit and cause of action must be treated as one, and there can be no substantial separation; and although the cause of action may be settled before the suit has been filed, after the filing of the suit, no person, whether party or third person, can settle the suit or the cause of action so as to defeat the lien of the attorney for his fees, and the attorney notwithstanding any settlement of the cause of action, has the right to prosecute the suit in the name of his client for the recovery of his fee.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by H. M. Crosby against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company. From a ruling permitting the action to proceed for the use of plaintiff's attorney, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Colquitt & Conyers, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hines & Jordan, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

HILL C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

The ruling of the trial court in allowing the case to proceed for the use of plaintiff's attorney is based upon the court's interpretation of the law of Georgia relating to the lien of attorneys for their fees. The Civil Code (1910)§ 3364, par. 2, provides as follows: "Upon suits judgments, and decrees for money, they [attorneys] 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." Learned counsel for the plaintiff in error insist first that this lien attaches only to the suit, judgment, or decree, and the property recovered for his client, and that it does not attach to the subject-matter of the cause of action; and, second, that the words in the act "no person," are intended to mean "no person litigant," no defendant, or person occupying the same relative position as the defendant. We think the distinction sought to be made in the first contention is based upon a misconception of the rulings of the Supreme Court on that subject. Unquestionably no lien in favor of the attorney at law attaches to the cause of action--that is, to the cause of action before the suit on such cause of action is filed--but upon the institution of a suit on the cause of action the attorney's lien attaches to the...