Little v. Sexton

• Decision Date: 08 June 1892
• Citation: 89 Ga. 411,15 S.E. 490
• Parties: Little v. Sexton.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

15 S.E. 490

89 Ga. 411

Little

v.Sexton.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 8, 1892.

Lien of Attorney for Fees—Liability of Party Settling with Client—Notice.

Under the act of 1873, (Code, § 1989,) the only notice necessary to a defendant in a pending action of the lien of the plaintiff's attorney on the suit and its proceeds for his fees in that case is knowledge of the fact that the suit has been instituted and is pending. A settlement made directly with the plaintiff, though without other notice of the attorney's lien, will leave the defendant liable in the action to a recovery for the benefit of the attorney to the extent of his fees, if there was a cause of action between the parties; and the attorney may prosecute the suit, and recover accordingly. The case of Haynes v. Perry, 76 Ga. 33, was affected by there being no traverse of the sheriff's return, and beyond that would be, in what was said touching actual notice, relevant only to a claim of Hen for fees for services rendered in some case or cases other than the one from which the fund was realized.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Gwinnett county; N. L. Hutchins, Judge.

At the instance of Rebecca Sexton, David F. Little, administrator, was cited to settle. There was a verdict against him, and, his motion for a new trial being denied, he brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

The case was in the superior court upon appeal from the court of ordinary by Little, administrator, from a finding against him upon a citation for settlement at the instance of Mrs. Sexton. There was a verdict against Little for $166, and, defendant's motion for new trial being overruled, he excepts. The motion contained the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc, and also that the court erred in refusing to charge, as requested in writing by defendant: "If plaintiff and defend-ant settled this case without notice to defendant of the claim of Juhan & McDonald for attorneys 'fees, then defendant would not be liable therefor, and you should find for him." Also, because the court erred in charging: "If Juhan & McDonald were acting as attorneys for plaintiff, and as such procured a judgment against defendant, then plaintiff and defendant could not defeat the lien of the attorneys on such judgment for their fees in the case by settlement thereof between themselves; and in such case, though plaintiff and defendant may have settled the judgment between themselves,...