Laughlin v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1917
• Citation: Laughlin v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 196 S.W. 398, 196 Mo.App. 541 (Kan. App. 1917)
• Parties: L. A. LAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

196 S.W. 398

196 Mo.App. 541

L. A. LAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

June 11, 1917

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. Harris Robinson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

R. W Blair and Watson, Gage & Watson for appellant.

L. R Gates for respondent.

OPINION

ELLISON.P. J.

A Grecian named Xedes was injured by defendant.On the recommendation of a fellow countryman, named Coliopolus, he employed plaintiff to bring an action against defendant for damages.He made such employment in writing; agreeing to give plaintiff fifty per cent of what he recovered, or of any sum he should get in a compromise, or other settlement of the claim, but at all events plaintiff was to receive one hundred dollars.

For some undisclosed reason, Xedes employed other attorneys and they brought an action for him in the State court which was afterwards removed to the Federal court at Kansas City Missouri.The case was tried in the latter court and judgment rendered for $ 550 and the money paid by defendant to the Clerk of that court, from whom it was drawn by the attorneys who brought the suit and the judgment satisfied.Plaintiff had no notice or knowledge of the judgment or that it was paid until long afterwards.

After plaintiff's employment, and before the other attorneys had been employed to supplant him, he served written notice on defendant of his agreement with Xedes and of his claim of an attorney's lien for a certain per cent of whatever amount he obtained in settlement of said claim.

Plaintiff did nothing under his employment, other than prepare for it, for the reason that he was prevented by the action of Xedes in employing other attorneys.

After the notice of lien was served Xedes attempted a settlement with defendant's attorneys who told him of plaintiff's claim and refused to settle with him.

Afterwards plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace, to recover $ 275, being one-half of the judgment obtained.He prevailed both in the justice and the circuit court on appeal, and defendant had brought the case here.

Defendant makes earnest effort to show that as the judgment was rendered in the Federal court, the amount paid in to the Clerk and by him paid out to the attorneys of record representing the plaintiff in the judgment, the present lienor plaintiff can have no cause of action; it being insisted, in this respect, that an attorneys lien under the State law cannot attach to a judgment or proceeding in a Federal court, that court being regarded as foreign to the State.We think the point not well made.The lien is a substantial right which the attorney has vouchsafed to him by the local State law, and it will be enforced in the Federal court for such State, as any other claim arising under a State law.It has been so recognized.[Brown v. Morgan,163 F. 395;Cain v. Hockensmith, W. & C. Co.,157 F. 992.]And the removal, of a case from the State to the Federal court was not allowed to affect an attorney's lien allowed by the law of Alabama.[Central Railroad v. Pettus,113 U.S. 116, 28 L.Ed. 915, 5 S.Ct. 387.]

In view of the fact that this case was brought in a court other than the one rendering the judgment, and in which court that judgment was satisfied without the consent of knowledge of this plaintiff whose claim, if not now based upon our attorney's lien statute(Sec. 965, R. S. 1909) has that statute for its support, it is proper that we consider the propriety of the remedy sought by plaintiff.The statute after giving the lien and providing for notice, proceeds to...