Rhinehart v. New Madrid Banking Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1903
• Parties: RHINEHART v. NEW MADRID BANKING CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 315

99 Mo. App. 381

RHINEHART v. NEW MADRID BANKING CO. et al.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 17, 1903.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT — AUTHORITY — RECEIPT OF MONEY—BANKS—DEPOSIT OF COLLECTIONS—EFFECT—NOTICE OF INDEBTEDNESS OF ATTORNEY.

1. An attorney of record who prosecutes a suit to judgment for his client has authority to receive the money due on the judgment.

2. Where an attorney collected money belonging to plaintiff as her attorney, and deposited the same to his credit in defendant bank, the relation of trust between plaintiff and the attorney did not pass to or charge the bank as trustee of the plaintiff in respect to the money so deposited.

3. Where plaintiff's attorney collected money for her which he deposited to his credit in defendant bank, and thereafter gave plaintiff a check on the account for the amount due her, less his fees, the fact that plaintiff was unsatisfied with the settlement obtained, and notified the cashier of the bank that there was yet due her $117 of the money so deposited, did not entitle her to sue the bank to recover the amount so claimed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by M. B. Rhinehart against the New Madrid Banking Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant bank appeals. Reversed.

The facts in this case, briefly stated, are that Robert Rutledge, an attorney at law, prosecuted a suit for the plaintiff, and recovered a judgment in her favor for $2,142.35, which amount he collected and deposited in the defendant bank to his individual credit. Afterwards he gave a check to plaintiff against the deposit for $1,792.35, which plaintiff presented to the bank, and had cashed. At the time she cashed the check she notified the cashier that there were yet $117 of the money deposited by Rutledge due to her, and that Rutledge had overcharged her that amount as attorney's fee. The $350, the balance of the judgment collected by Rutledge and remaining to his credit in the bank, he claimed for fee for his services, and to reimburse him for money he had paid out as expenses in the prosecution of plaintiff's lawsuit. This suit was brought against both the bank and Rutledge. A demurrer was interposed to the petition by defendants on the ground that the petition failed to state any cause of action and that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant. Plaintiff thereupon dismissed her suit as to Rutledge, and the demurrer was overruled as to...