Lowery v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 105
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | MAYFIELD, J. |
| Citation | 69 So. 954,195 Ala. 144 |
| Parties | LOWERY v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
| Docket Number | 105 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1915 |
69 So. 954
195 Ala. 144
LOWERY
v.
ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
No. 105
Supreme Court of Alabama
October 21, 1915
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1915
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J.J. Curtis, Judge.
Action by M.J. Lowery against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. After reversal of judgment for plaintiff, and pending a second trial, he released defendant from liability, and plaintiff's attorney, seeking to enforce his attorney's lien, moved to strike defendant's pleas of release. Judgment of nonsuit, and defendant's attorney appeals. Reversed and remanded. [69 So. 955]
Ray & Cooner, of Jasper, for appellant.
Davis & Fite, of Jasper, for appellee.
MAYFIELD, J.
This appeal involves the construction and effect to be given to subdivision 2 of section 3011 of the Code, which provides for attorneys' liens upon suits, judgments, etc. This subdivision reads as follows:
"Upon suits, judgments, and decrees for money, they shall have a lien superior to all liens but tax liens, and no person shall be at liberty to satisfy said suit, judgment, or decree, until the lien or claim of the attorney for his fees is fully satisfied; and attorneys at law shall have the same right and power over said suits, judgments, and decrees, to enforce their liens, as their clients had or may have for the amount due thereon to them."
Appellant brought suit against appellee to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of defendant. He obtained a judgment for $750, but this judgment was reversed on appeal to this court. See report of case, 184 Ala. 443, 63 So. 952.
Before the case was called for a second trial, defendant effected with plaintiff a compromise and settlement of the suit for $180, and on payment of that amount obtained from plaintiff a release from all liability on account of the suit. The defendant pleads this release as a defense to the further prosecution of the suit.
The attorney for plaintiff moved to strike the pleas, and demurred thereto. The court ruled against the attorney, both as to his motion to strike and his demurrer. His motion to strike the pleas was based on the ground that he was employed as plaintiff's attorney in the suit; that he had prosecuted it to judgment, but the judgment was reversed on appeal; and that before the next trial the defendant, without movant's knowledge or consent, without paying movant's fees or otherwise discharging his lien...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 7 Div. 735
...to pending causes in this court in Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 70 So. 283, and (after reversal on appeal) in Lowery v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 69 So. 954. Discussing the constitutionality of the statute, appellee's counsel admits that intervener's position depends altogether on the validity of......
-
Gulf States Steel Co. v. Justice, 6 Div. 944
...Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 195 Ala. 348, 350, 70 So. 283, 284. In a suit for damages to an employee (Lowery v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 146, 69 So. 954, 955), Mr. Justice Mayfield observed of subdivision 2 of this statute that it-- "was construed in the case of Fuller v. Cotton Mil......
-
Hale v. Tyson, 3 Div. 325
...v. Long, 195 Ala. 560, 70 So. 733; Harton v. Amason, supra; Denson v. Ala. Fuel & Iron Co., supra; Lowery v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 69 So. 954; Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 195 Ala. 348, 70 So. 283. It results from what we have said that the bill was without equity, and that ......
-
Alabama Produce Co. v. Smith, 8 Div. 510.
...not been eliminated. He could deny the fact of settlement, or could have specially replied to those pleas. Lowery v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 69 So. 954. The procedure described in Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Denson, 208 Ala. 337, 94 So. 311, seems to have been pursued in this case. ......
-
Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 7 Div. 735
...to pending causes in this court in Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 70 So. 283, and (after reversal on appeal) in Lowery v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 69 So. 954. Discussing the constitutionality of the statute, appellee's counsel admits that intervener's position depends altogether on the validity of......
-
Gulf States Steel Co. v. Justice, 6 Div. 944
...Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 195 Ala. 348, 350, 70 So. 283, 284. In a suit for damages to an employee (Lowery v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 146, 69 So. 954, 955), Mr. Justice Mayfield observed of subdivision 2 of this statute that it-- "was construed in the case of Fuller v. Cotton Mil......
-
Hale v. Tyson, 3 Div. 325
...v. Long, 195 Ala. 560, 70 So. 733; Harton v. Amason, supra; Denson v. Ala. Fuel & Iron Co., supra; Lowery v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 69 So. 954; Empire Coal Co. v. Bowen, 195 Ala. 348, 70 So. 283. It results from what we have said that the bill was without equity, and that ......
-
Alabama Produce Co. v. Smith, 8 Div. 510.
...not been eliminated. He could deny the fact of settlement, or could have specially replied to those pleas. Lowery v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 195 Ala. 144, 69 So. 954. The procedure described in Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Denson, 208 Ala. 337, 94 So. 311, seems to have been pursued in this case. ......