Parsons v. Hawley

• Decision Date: 16 October 1894
• Parties: PARSONS ET AL. v. HAWLEY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

92 Iowa 175

60 N.W. 520

PARSONS ET AL.

v.HAWLEY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 16, 1894.

Appeal from superior court of Keokuk; Henry Bank, Jr., Judge.

Action at law to recover attorney's fees. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for $300. Defendant appeals. Reversed.James H. Anderson, for appellant.

Parsons & Dolan and Jas. C. Davis, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

It appears that in the year 1889 one Verburg commenced an action against George C. Hawley, appellant herein, for the conversion of two horses, a wagon, and harness. After the suit was commenced, and before it was tried, Hawley delivered the horses to Verburg, and a trial was had for the conversion of the wagon and harness. The trial resulted in favor of Verburg for $778. Hawley appealed the case to this court, and pending the appeal the parties settled the cause, and by a stipulation the judgment appealed from was reversed. After the cause was settled in this court, and the judgment reversed, the plaintiffs herein, as attorneys for Verburg, filed an application for a rehearing of the order reversing the judgment, which was overruled. The application for a rehearing appears to have been founded upon the thought that a notice of a lien for attorney's fees attached to the judgment, and the parties had no right to settle the case without making provision for the payment of the attorney's fees. It appears that shortly after the original action was commenced the attorneys of Verburg served a notice on Hawley of a claim for $300 attorney's fees. After the judgment was rendered they entered another notice of record, claiming $500 attorney's fees. Counsel for appellant insists that these notices were not in proper form, and therefore not in compliance with the statute, which is section 215 of the Code. The objection is not well taken, and we do not think it is necessary to set out the notices and discuss the question.

There is nothing in this whole record to show why such an enormous judgment was recovered for the conversion of a wagon and harness, except the testimony of one of counsel for appellees that the conversion was a grievous wrong and outrage, amounting almost to highway robbery. The fact is that the fees claimed by the attorneys and allowed by the court far exceed the value of the subject of the action. The parties to the judgment had the right to settle their case after it was appealed to this court. The statute authorizing a lien does not provide for a lien on the...