Seybert v. Salem Township

• Decision Date: 12 March 1903
• Docket Number: 52-1903
• Parties: Seybert, Appellant v. Salem Township
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

22 Pa.Super. 459

Seybert, Appellant v. Salem Township

No. 52-1903

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 12, 1903

Argued January 16, 1903

Appeal by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Luzerne Co.-1897, No. 114 making absolute rule on plaintiff to pay counsel fees, in case of Daniel F. Seybert v. Salem Township.

Rule on plaintiff to show cause why $ 500 should not be paid out of money in the hands of his present attorneys, John T. Lenahan and James L. Lenahan to T.R. Martin, his former attorney, for his services as attorney.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.

Error assigned was order making the rule absolute.

John D Farnham and Alexander Farnham, for appellant. -- An attorney has not a lien on money in the hands of another: Irwin v Workman, 3 Watts, 357; Dubois's App., 38 Pa. 231; McKelvy's App., 108 Pa. 615.

Rush Trescott, for appellee. -- In the absence of any express agreement, an attorney may recover from his client a quantum meruit for his services rendered: Foster v. Jack, 4 Watts, 334; Young v. Merkel, 163 Pa. 513; Thompson v. Boyle, 85 Pa. 477.

The appellant is entitled to his fee out of the fund in question Cook's Est., 1 Phila. 408; Manderson's App., 113 Pa. 631; Price's App., 116 Pa. 410; Burns's Case, 6 Pa. C.C. 159; Fidelity Ins., etc., Co.'s App., 108 Pa. 339; Patten v. Wilson, 34 Pa. 299; McKelvy's App., 108 Pa. 615; Good v. Grant, 76 Pa. 52; Read v. Dupper, 6 T.R. 361; Welsh v. Hole, 1 Doug. 238; Spencer's App., 9 A. 523; Atkinson's App., 11 A. 239; Davies's Case, 93 Pa. 116.

Before Beaver, Smith, W. W. Porter, W. D. Porter and Morrison, JJ.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

This appeal presents an attempt to extend the powers of an attorney at law over a former client's money, and, by the aid of a court, to appropriate it to the attorney, without recourse to the ordinary methods established by law for the collection of debts. The appellant, Daniel F. Seybert, having a claim against Salem township for damages for personal injuries, consulted the appellee, T.R. Martin, Esq., an attorney at law, who, after ascertaining the facts, brought an action of trespass therefor against the township. He filed a declaration and did other services in the preparation for the trial. Before the cause was reached for trial, the appellee was discharged from the case and he rendered no further assistance. No agreement whatever was made for payment of the appellee's services in the case, nor was there any stipulation as to how or when they would be paid.

The appellant employed other counsel who prosecuted the case to judgment, and received the amount of the verdict. After judgment the appellee petitioned the court, reciting the facts, and asked for a rule on the appellant to show cause why he should not pay the appellee the sum of $ 500, out of the moneys in the hands of the attorneys, who tried the case, and that they retain this amount in their hands until the rule prayed for is disposed of by the court. The rule was granted as asked for on May 21, 1900. Testimony as to the value of appellee's services was taken, and in a short opinion filed, the rule was made absolute July 18, 1902. The appellant denies the power of the court to make this order.

The right of an attorney at law in Pennsylvania to recover compensation for professional services by action or defalcation was finally determined in Balsbaugh v. Frazer, 19 Pa. 95. In that case the rights and duties which spring from the relation of attorney and client, and the conditions under which an attorney may recover fees for professional services, are clearly defined. It has also been held that in equity a chancellor has power to direct the payment of reasonable counsel fees out of moneys for distribution, when the fund is the product of the attorney's labors and he has agreed to look to it solely for his compensation: McKelvy's Appeal, 108 Pa. 615. And similar authority is vested in the orphans' court: Price's Appeal, 116 Pa. 410.

In Spencer's Appeal, reported in 9 A. 523, the fund, which had been produced through the services of the attorney, was paid into court, and, as the owner sought to withdraw it without paying the attorney fee, the court refused to permit him to do so, against the protest of the attorney who attended to the business which produced the money in contention. In Atkinson's Appeal, reported in 11 A. 239 the fund in contention was paid into court, and an auditor appointed to distribute it. It was found, as a fact, that the attorney in that case was, by agreement, to take his fees out of the fund then for distribution, which finding was approved by the court. The Supreme Court said, in that case, that as the attorney's entire compensation was to come out of the fund when realized, it would have been gross injustice to turn it over, as it was the result in large...