Steiner v. Stein, 158/361.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 158/361. |
| Parties | STEINER et al. v. STEIN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Helen Steiner and others against Monroe E. Stein and another to redeem papers retained by defendants by virtue of attorney's lien as security for unpaid fee and to enjoin defendants from taking further action in attachment suit in New York Supreme Court to recover attorney's fee.
Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint denied, injunction granted, and motion for interlocutory order compelling defendants to surrender papers granted on terms.
When one person holds personal property of another as security, whether under chattel mortgage, pledge, or lien arising by law, the owner may redeem his property by paying his debt. If there is such uncertainty as to the amount due that payment cannot be tendered, the legal remedy is unavailable, and the owner may redeem in Chancery.
Hannoch & Lasser and Herbert J. Hannoch, all of Newark, for complainants.
Herbert M. Ellend, of Newark, for defendant Monroe E. Stein.
Isadore H. Colton, of Newark, for defendant Bertha Zucker.
BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.
This is a suit against an attorney-at-law of New Jersey to recover from him certain papers, the property of complainants, which came into his possession in the course of his services for complainants and which he retains by virtue of his attorney's general lien. Complainants offered him $3,300, which they assert is the sum due him under an agreement fixing his fee. He refused to surrender the papers unless he were paid $20,000, which sum he was willing to accept, provided that the dispute as to fees could be thus settled. Complainants were unwilling to meet his demand and filed their bill in which, while protesting that $3,300 is the correct sum, they offer to pay whatever fee the Court may determine is proper.
The defendant moves to dismiss the bill on two grounds. The first is that the bill is fatally defective because it fails to allege that the complainants had demanded from the defendant a statement of his fees for services rendered. The only object of such a demand would be to find out how much the defendant claims to be due, so that complainants might pay him if they should acquiesce in the amount. In such event, there would be no necessity of litigation. The assertion by the complainants that only $3,300 is due and the charge that defendant refuses to surrender their papers unless paid $20,000, is sufficient to show a conflict between the parties. The other ground on which defendant moves to strike, is that complainants have an adequate remedy at law.
When one person holds personal property of another as security, whether under chattel mortgage, pledge, or lien arising by law, the owner may redeem his property by paying his debt. Upon his tender of the proper amount, if the lienor refuses to surrender the property, an action of trover or replevin is generally the proper remedy. The measure of damages is the value of the property converted, and where the property is documents and papers without a market value, a judgment for damages is not considered an adequate remedy. In replevin, the plaintiff can obtain the chattels themselves in lieu of damages, even though the defendant rebond. R.S. 2:73-32, N.J.S.A. Gropper v. Hoover, 139 A. 837, 5 N.J.Misc. 649, affirmed 104 N.J.L. 436, 140 A. 919. But before the cause of action accrues, the amount of the lien must be tendered, and therefore the owner must know or be in a position to learn the amount due. If there is such uncertainty as to the amount due that payment cannot be tendered, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coates v. Ellis.
...Distilling Corp., D.C.D.Del., 59 F.Supp. 528; F. X. Hooper Co. v. Continental Langston Co., D.C.D.N.J., 56 F.Supp. 577; Steiner v. Stein, 141 N.J.Eq. 478, 58 A.2d 102; Camden Trust Co. v. Toone, 141 N.J.Eq. 342, 57 A.2d 509. 4Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Elec. P. Corp., 3 Cir., ......
-
Marsh, Day & Calhoun v. Solomon
...in his possession in the interest of fairness and equity. See Upgrade Corporation v. Michigan Carton Co., supra; Steiner v. Stein, 141 N.J.Eq. 478, 58 A.2d 102 (1948); Leviten v. Sandbank, supra; Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N.Y. 467, 143 N.E. 647 (1924). One court has noted: "The retaining lien......
-
Steiner v. Stein
...of services and, secondly, that the complainants had a complete remedy at law. The learned Vice Chancellor held otherwise, 141 N.J.Eq. 478, 58 A.2d 102, denying the motion to strike the bills and continuing the restraint against the prosecution of the New York attachment proceedings on term......
-
Lucky-Goldstar v. International Mfg. Sales Co.
...judicial devices, the former for the protection of the attorney, the latter for the protection of the client. See Steiner v. Stein, 141 N.J.Eq. 478, 58 A.2d 102, 104 (1948). There is an equally important third interest—effective judicial administration. The conflict between the withdrawn at......