De Graffenreid v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 50 S.W. 272
• Parties: DE GRAFFENREID et al. v. ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 11 March 1899
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 272

50 S.W. 272

DE GRAFFENREID et al. v. ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 11, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Nevada county; Rufus D. Hearn, Judge.

Action by Nettie Brownlow against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. R. C. De Graffenreid and another intervened. From a judgment dismissing the intervention, interveners appeal. Affirmed.

Nettie Brownlow sued the railway company for personal injuries. The issues were made up, and the cause was transferred to the equity docket, where it had progressed to submission; but, before a decree was rendered, the railway company settled with the plaintiff, and secured her written authority to dismiss her suit. Thereupon the railway company filed its motion to dismiss, and the appellants, who were plaintiff's attorneys, filed their intervention, and resisted appellee's motion to dismiss. The intervention set up, inter alia, that interveners were employed by the plaintiff to take charge of her claim against the railway company for personal injuries, and that they were to have full power to enter suit, or compromise the same, as they might deem best, and as compensation therefor were to receive a one-half interest in said claim. This was the verbal agreement of interveners with plaintiff; and, in addition to this, they allege that plaintiff executed to interveners a written transfer of a one-half interest in her suit, and any judgment she might recover therein. They show that, in pursuance of the agreement with plaintiff, they instituted suit against the railway company, and conducted same, doing all the labor incident thereto, down to the time the cause was submitted to the chancellor for decision, and to the filing of the motion to dismiss. They set up the insolvency of the plaintiff; show the unpaid costs in the case to be $28.75, for which they allege interveners were liable; also, allege that there were additional costs and expenses amounting to $139.55, which plaintiff had promised to pay. They set up that the releases obtained by the railway in settlement of plaintiff's demand were without the knowledge and consent of the interveners, and that the railway well knew at the time that interveners owned a one-half interest in the suit, and were working for a contingent fee of one-half the amount that might be recovered; also, knew that interveners had advanced large sums of money to plaintiff, as aforesaid, in procuring evidence, etc. They charge that the settlement was collusive, and made with the intent to cheat and defraud interveners. They allege the justness of plaintiff's claim, saying she was entitled to receive $25,000, whereas she in fact only received $150. Their prayer was that the suit be not dismissed, and that the court should render a decree upon the merits, and that interveners recover against the defendant the sum of $12,500, and all costs, and for general and special relief such as the equities require. A demurrer and answer were interposed by the railway company. The answer denied all material allegations. The cause was heard upon all the pleadings and depositions, and the court rendered the following decree: "The court is of opinion that said interveners are not entitled to prosecute this cause upon their intervention, except for the purpose of collecting the taxable costs in ...