Case ID: dc_8/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Olin", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY vs. ANDY M. ADAMS, A. H. JACKSON, AND A. J. WILLIAMS.
    In Equity.
    No. 3651.
    I. Upon a bill of interpleader where the fund in dispute has been assigned, and had been collected by the complainants upon a draft in favor of the assignee, and on his account, it was held that he was entitled to the money against his co-defendant, who claimed it upon the ground that he had an attorney’s lien upon the fund.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    Bill of interpleader exhibited by Adams Express Company to determine which of the defendants were entitled to the amount of a draft which had been sent to them from California. The complainants have no interest in the fund aside .from paying it to whom it belongs. The claim of the defendant Jackson arises under the following circumstances:
    . It appears that one Eldridge Gerry had a claim against the United States for Indian depredations, and that he employed . the- defendant Adams to prosecute it, together with several other claims. It seems that Adams placed these claims in the hands of Charles Ewing, of Washington. City, for collection, upon an agreement that the fees in the cases should be ...divided between him and said Ewing, he to have one-third . and Ewing two-thirds; that Ewing not having time to give his attention to the business the defendant Jackson was also employed to attend to said claim before Congress, for which -he was to receive from Ewing two-thirds of his part of the fees and one-third from Adams. That when the amount of this particular claim was allowed, Jackson’s fee amounted to one thousand dollars,, of which Ewing paid two-thirds, leaving $333,333;- due him from said Adams. That about the time that the Gerry claim was collected, knowing that it was to be paid, and exactly what amount was coming to him, he, Adams, assigned his portion of the fee in that case to A. J. Williams, to whom he was indebted for a larger sum than was so.coming to.him, and by power of attorney duly made for that purpose empowered Williams to draw in conjunction with Gerry for that amount on said Ewing; that accordingly two drafts were drawn, one by Eldridge Gerry alone, and the other by Gerry and Williams jointly, on Charles Ewing, and, together with a power of attorney from Williams authorizing Ewing to receive the money from the United States, and another from Adams, authorizing Williams and Gerry to draw jointly for the portion of said claim belonging to him, Adams, were placed in the hands of Adams Express Company for collection; that the drafts were paid by Ewing, the one drawn by Eldridge Gerry in a draft on New York, and the other drawn by Gerry and Williams in currency. Jackson then commenced the suit against Adams, mentioned in the opinion of the court, and garnisheed the fund in the hands of the complainants collected by them upon the draft of Gerry and Williams. Adams denies that he ever employed Jackson, or ever agreed to pay him any part of his fee in the case; and further he claims that he assigned his share of the fee to Williams in payment of a just debt, and that Williams accepted such payment in good faith. These are all the facts necessary to be stated in addition to those set forth in the opinion.
    W. B. Webb for complainants, and also attorney for defendant Williams:
    The claim of Jackson to the fund in controversy, as shown by the proceedings in the case, arises thus: He was employed, as he says himself, by Ewing and Adams to assist them in the prosecution of the case of Eldridge Gerry, and for his services in that behalf he was to have a portion of théir fee. It is contended that Jackson has a lien upon Adams’s share of the fee; and the theory of Jackson seems to be that, notwithstanding the fact that Adams has assigned this interest of his, the lien follows the fund, and the assignee takes it cum onere.
    
    It is submitted that not one of the elements of an attorney’s lien subsists here. That lien always attaches, when it attaches at all, to the fund collected, and then only when the fund comes into the hands of the attorney himself. It cannot be made to apply to the case under consideration, where the fund is not the fund really collected, but merely the share of one of the attorneys engaged in prosecuting the claim-Jackson had nothing to do with collecting Adams’s fees. He had only an agreement with Adams that he was to have a part of the fee coming to him, Adams, out of the fund collected.
    Adams denies that he ever employed Jackson, or ever agreed to pay him any part of‘his fee in the case, and, on the contrary; swears that he assigned his share of the fees in the case of Eldridge Gerry to Williams in payment of a debt he owed Williams, in perfect good faith, and that Williams accepted it in good faith. Williams’s title to the money is perfectly made out, and the fact cannot be doubted that Ewing paid the money upon the draft of Williams, drawn upon him by virtue of a power of attorney delivered to him with the draft, and therefore with a perfect knowledge of the transfer made by Adams.
    
      Moore and Newman for defendant Jackson:
    It is respectfully but earnestly contended by your appellant, A. H. Jackson, that the court below erred in passing the above decree, and in refusing to allow his claim to be paid out of or from the funds attached and garnisheed in the hands of the plaintiff, and in support of this the following 'points and authorities are submitted :
    Attorneys at law and solicitors in equity have, undoubtedly, by the English rule, a general lien not only upon all moneys collected by them, but upon all books, papers, and documents of their clients in their possession, not only for all their charges and costs in the particular cause in which they came to their possession, but also for other professional business; and this lien extends to all moneys received and judgments recovered.
    The same rule is almost universally applied in the several States of the Union for the protection of the bar generally, and the Supreme Court holds to the same doctrine. For an exhaustive résumé of this doctrine, and of the various eminent authorities advocating it, see T. W. Dwight in American Law Register, vol. 10, or vol. 1, new series, 414; also, Exparte Plitt, 2 Wallace, jr., 453; Finder vs. Morris, 3 Caines, 165; Martin vs. Hawks, 15 Johnson, 405; St. John vs. Diffendorf, 12 Wendell, 261; Bradt vs. Koon, 4 Cowen, 416; Hutchinson vs. Pettes, 8, id., 614; Gammon vs. Chandler, 30 Maine, 152; Frost vs. Belmont, 6 Allen, 152; McDonald vs. Napier, 14 Georgia, 99; Patten vs. Wilson, Penn. State, 299; Pittmann’s case, 1 Curtis, 186; Casey vs. March, 30 Texas, 180; Wylie vs. Coxe, 15 How., 415.
   Mr. Justice Olin

delivered the opinion of the court:

This cause comes before us on appeal from a decree of the justice holding the special term. A bill was filed, commonly known as a bill of interpleader, under the following circumstances.

Jackson, one- of the defendants, brought a suit at law against the defendant Adams to recover a sum of money which he claimed to be owing to him from Adams.

Upon the commencement of such suit Jackson made affidavit that Adams was a non-resident of this District, obtained a writ of attachment against certain funds in the hands of the complainants, the Adams Express Company, which he claimed was collected by said company for and on account of A. M. Adams. The company was summoned as garnishee, and upon interrogatories answered it had no funds in its hands belonging to the defendant A. M. Adams.

The justice holding the circuit refused, on motion for that purpose, to quash the attachment, and the case between Jackson and Adams was tried, a verdict found for Jaekson for the amount of his claim. In the mean time Williams, the other defendant, intervened and claimed the fund attached as belonging to him, and that his right to the fund might be determined in the suit at law then pending before the court. This, says the record, the court refused to do, and advised that a bill of interpleader be filed on the equity side of the court, and refused to take any action as to the fund in the hands of the express company, the present complainants.

Accordingly a bill of interpleader was filed by the complainants ; and on the hearing of the cause in the equity court upon pleadings and proof, it appeared that prior to the levying of the attachment on this fund in the hands of the complainants a draft had been drawn by A. M. Adams in favor of Williams for the amount of the funds in its hands, and by the company accepted.

This transaction operated as an assignment of the fund to Williams, and therefore the express company had no funds in its hand belonging to A. M. Adams. Jackson rests his right to the fund in question upon the ground that he had what is called an attorney’s lien upon this fund, having aided, by his services as attorney or counsel, Adams in obtaining it. But as the fund never came into Jackson’s hands, he had no lien upon it for his fees, possession being the necessary prerequisite to the operation of such a lien, except in some exceptional case where there is a concurrence of circumstances such as existed in Child vs. Trist, ante, page 1, decided at a former term of this court.

The decree of the court in special term should be affirmed.