Case ID: nys_26/html/1114-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVENTH ST. In re DEERING.
    (Supreme Court General Term, First Department.
    December 15, 1893.)
    James A. Deering interposed a claim in the proceeding for the opening of One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh street
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.
    George G. Munger, for appellant.
    Henry A. Powell, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The record upon which this appeal is heard shows beyond dispute that the relation of attorney and client between Deering and James Baird never existed; and as that relation is the necessary foundation for an attorney’s lien, it follows that the attorney has' no lien upon the fund. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.