Hatfield v. Richmond

• Decision Date: 16 October 1917
• Citation: 177 Ky. 183,197 S.W. 654
• Parties: HATFIELD v. RICHMOND ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

197 S.W. 654

177 Ky. 183

HATFIELD v. RICHMOND ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 16, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Letcher County.

Action by O. F. Richmond and others against Johnson Hatfield wherein S.E. Baker, an attorney, was adjudged a lien upon the land involved, and Hatfield appeals. Affirmed.

Whitt &amp Shannon, of Williamson, W. Va., for appellant.

W. G Dearing, of Whitesburg, for appellees.

CARROLL J.

The lower court adjudged S.E. Baker, an attorney, a lien for $150 upon a tract of land, and Hatfield appeals.

The first question arising on the record is, Can an appeal be prosecuted to this court as a matter of right from a judgment of a circuit court allowing an attorney a lien upon land for his fee, when the fee for which the lien is given is only $150? It is provided in section 950 of the Kentucky Statutes that:

"An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from the judgment of the circuit court in all cases in which the title to land or the right to an easement therein, or the right to enforce a statutory lien thereon is directly involved"

--and in section 107 it is provided that:

"Attorneys-at-law shall have a lien upon all claims or demands, including all claims for unliquidated damages put into their hands for suit or collection, or upon which suit has been instituted, for the amount of any fee which may have been agreed upon by the parties, or, in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee for the services of such attorneys; and if the action is prosecuted to a recovery, shall have a lien upon the judgment for money or property which may be recovered--legal costs excepted--for such fee."

It will be seen that by section 107, when a claim or demand is put into the hands of an attorney for suit or collection, or upon which suit has been instituted, he shall have a lien upon the judgment for money or property which may be recovered for any fee which may have been agreed upon, or, in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee for his services. In this case the property recovered was land, and the attorney for the successful claimant was given by the statute a lien upon it for his fee, so that the case falls clearly within the provisions of section 950, declaring that:

"An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right * * * in all cases in which the title to land * * * or the right to enforce a statutory lien thereon is directly involved."

And so this court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

It is said, however, that the suit in which Baker asserts the fee against Hatfield was a suit brought by Richmond against Hatfield, and that as Baker represented the defendant in the suit, the statute giving attorneys a lien is not applicable because this statute gives a lien to attorneys only upon money or property which may be recovered in an action instituted by them. It has been held in numerous cases that an attorney who represents a defendant who is merely resisting an action seeking the recovery of money or property, though his client may be...