Hittson v. Browne
| Citation | 3 Colo. 304 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1877 |
| Parties | HITTSON v. BROWNE et al. |
Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County.
THE bill in this case states that complainants, as copartners, as Browne & Putnam, on the 21st of April, 1873, as attorneys were retained by one Polly A. Shortridge to collect a promissory note signed by James Patterson, payable to one G W. Arnold, for the sum of $1,000; that in pursuance of such retainer, they brought a suit in the probate court of Arapahoe county, and that at the June term, 1873, a judgment was rendered in favor of said payee for the use of said Shortridge, for $466.72 and costs. That on the 25th of June, 1873, defendant prayed an appeal, and on the 8th of July, 1873, filed his appeal bond, and on the 6th day of October, the papers were filed in the district court. And that on the 8th day of May, 1874, at the April term of said district court, said appeal was dismissed on motion of complainants, as such attorneys, with a procedendo to said probate court. That an execution was issued against Patterson and returned unsatisfied. That on the 24th day of August 1874, said Putnam, on behalf of said firm, brought an action in said district court of Arapahoe county on said appeal bond, against said Patterson as principal and John Hittson and Samuel Singer as sureties, and on the 28th of November, 1874, at the September term of the court in that year, said Arnold recovered a judgment for the use of said Polly A. Shortridge against said Hittson for the sum of $575.61 and costs. That the complainants paid advance costs to the clerk, the sum of $2, on behalf of said plaintiff. That the judgment so rendered in said district court, but on what day is unknown, the said Shortridge received from said Hittson satisfaction thereof, and has satisfied the said judgment in the probate court in full, but has never paid complainants their fees and moneys expended. That the complainants' fees and services in said cause in the probate court were worth $85, and their fees and expenditures necessarily made to the action on the bond were worth the sum of $87. That the same has not been paid. That the satisfaction of such judgment was made by said Shortridge and Hittson for the purpose of cheating complainants out of their fees and expenditures, amounting in the aggregate to $197, of which Hittson, before he paid the judgment, had notice by virtue of the statute.
PRAYER. That Hittson be made defendant to the bill, and for process, etc. And that an account be taken of what is due to complainants, that the same be declared a lien on said judgment in their favor, and that the satisfaction of said judgment to the amount of their lien be set aside, and that said Hittson be decreed to pay the sum found to be due to them, and in default thereof, that payment of said sum be enforced by execution. Prayer for general relief.
Hittson appeared and in his answer disclaims any knowledge as to whether complainants were partners or licensed attorneys, and as to whether they were retained to collect such note, or brought any suit thereon, or that judgment was recovered in the court or at the time stated against Patterson, or an appeal was prayed, or bond filed in the district court, or that such an appeal was dismissed and execution issued as stated in the bill, and submits to strict proof.
Admits that he was sued and impleaded with Patterson and Singer by one Arnold for the use of said Shortridge, and that judgment was obtained against him in said district court at the term and for the amount stated. But as to what attorneys brought the same, or whether on an appeal bond does not know. Admits that he paid and satisfied the judgment so obtained in said district court against him and said Shortridge, satisfied the same on the records on the 12th of December, 1874, but knows nothing as to the satisfaction of said judgment in the probate court, but submits to strict proof, etc. That the defendant knows nothing of any services rendered by complainants to Shortridge in such suits, or if rendered, how much they were worth, and submits to proof, etc. Denies all knowledge that said Shortridge was indebted to complainants for services in said suit in said district court at the time of the entry of satisfaction of the judgment therein and all notice of the same, and that the complainants had, prior to such payment, given to defendant any notice of such claim, or filed any petition or notice in said cause, in which the judgment was so satisfied in said district court, to enforce the lien, or notify defendant thereof. Denies that he procured satisfaction to be entered by Shortridge of the judgment in said district court with a view to cheat the defendants. Submits that complainants do not show themselves entitled to relief, that the bill shows defendant was not a party to said suit in the probate court in which judgment was rendered against Patterson, and that said Putnam alone performed the services as stated in the bill in which judgment was obtained against the defendant in the district court, and the defendant ought not to be charged, etc., and claims the same benefit as though he had demurred, and denies complainant's right to enforce lien, etc.
After replication filed, the cause was referred to a master to take proof. The hearing was upon the bill, answer, replication and master's report, and a decree rendered that the complainants were, at the time of the filing of the bill, and the entry of satisfaction of the judgments, entitled to liens on the judgments in the district and probate court in the bill mentioned, which was well known to the defendants, and declaring the same to be a lien to the extent of the sum of $199, and setting aside and canceling the entry of satisfaction to that extent, on the said judgment in the district court, and awarding execution for the said sum and costs, if not paid in twenty days.
It appeared in the evidence, among other things, that the complainants had been retained as alleged in the bill; that the complainants had advanced $2 in costs; that the services in the probate court were worth the sum of $85; on the appeal in the district court, $25; and in the action on the bond, including certain expenditures, $87. That both complainants appeared as copartners in the action on the note, but in the district court, Mr. Putnam alone appeared in behalf of the firm. That Mr. Browne was not a member of the bar, although a copartner of Mr. Putnam and equally interested with him in the fees.
Messrs. MILLER & CLOUGH, for appellant.
Messrs. BROWNE & PUTNAM, pro se.
The law is jealous of her votaries. Her chosen priests alone are permitted to enter her solemn temple, and minister at her sacred altars. Without her sanction, courts should not recognize the right of any one to appear and prosecute or defend causes which necessarily relate to so many of the varied and complex concerns of life, from the highest and most important, to the lowest and least significant. A lawyer, duly accredited, holds a station among men that stimulates him to a strict and honest performance of his imperious duties. The pride and dignity of character inspired by the high and honorable position to which he, by virtue of his office, has attained, affords a guaranty that the great interests committed to his hands affecting alike the rights of person and property, will be managed with scrupulous integrity and with the utmost skill and ability he can command. Animated by an enlightened sense of the delicate and grave responsibilities resting upon the legal profession, our...
To continue reading
Request your trial