The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-04-21

the party. II but to inquire whether the abo-
tornsys and Of all rules provisions Of law preventing
attorney from agreeing with his client for bis compen
the agreement q the parties express implied af
fected the attorneys lien BY the English practice tho
smosnt that the prevailing party was entitled TO recover
taxing officer included in the judgment, and the
amount thus taxed in the absence special agreement,
regarded the proper of c0mpena alton be-
tween the attorney and his client In other cases, this
party bound TO have the attorneys bin taxed Within
month after IL served upon him, and the bill thus
taxed taken as the of compensation In
action brought BY the attorney against his client to re-
was deemed conclusive to the reasonableness of the
charges and he permitted to dispute the items
upon sae q a1 5os nS Firth Doug 1877 Heopss
p PSI In this State the amount which an attorney
might claim for his services, which might DO al
lowed for such services by the court was mat
ter OF statute regulation by passed the 18th Of
February 1850 in which it provided that no officer
other person should exact demand be allowed,
any quota other fee for In respect any
service to be done performed thar there
in sIeefed. The act then prescribes the sums that
Jones & varick's edition of Laws Of New York,
vol. 2 All. And the regulation of these items, or
rather the adjustment of tariff Of fees, has been
the subject constant statutory revision from that time
down 10 the passage the Code 1t accordingly held
that the statute marked out and parieularaed the
which could be for the servsss Of at
trney and had attorneys to exact or demand
any other than such ~ WAS specified by
the statute that attorney in an actien against his
client for restricted TO the amount which was
Emendorf, II r., 315-in which ease the defendant
obtained verdict against the plaintiff The defendants
held that the plaintiff by the statute could have
covered but Common Pleas costs, that the attorneys
were limited to that amount: and it doubted they
had mace agreement with their client for greater
IT, under the statute they could have recovered 1t.
All these statutes have been abolished by the Code, and
he attorneys compensation left to the agreement
Z the parties express implied. But the repeal OF
hese statutes cannot affect the attorneys right to
lien upon the judgment He did not derive his lien from
them 1t existed long before any fee bill was enacted.
Ihesy regulated or hxsd the amount which he could
respect necessarily limited the extent Of his lien, but
id not create it. For services embraced in these
tstutes he had Lien upon the papers or upon the
judgment limited by them TO o certain amount pre-
scrbed services rendered in obtaining it. All that the Code
has has been abosh the fee bill and take away all
restraints upon attorneys making agreements with thei-
clients for their services 1t left the attorney to agree
the party by way of Indemnity for his expenses But this
does not touch the attorneys lien His right to it
tabehedby long Of authority and unless il
presy taken away, Or is wholly inconsistent with the
change that the Code has made respecting costs. it
must still exist Cannot see how this Legislation
be regarded atolshng it affecting it at
all. The right to lien Tor services rendered Is
distinct thing The measure by which the value
of these services Is asce,tained Ia another. The
latter has been made the subject of statutory enactnen
but The former has not. The statute has not inter-
fered with the right Of lien except limit the extent Of
it, and when thai limitation is removed, by the repeal Of
all statutes regulating the fees of attorneys, the right Of
lien upon the authority of adudved cases stands pre-
cisey 1t stood before these statutes enacted.
Justice Willard thinks that the for upholdng the
lien does exist because the attorney compensation il
but this has nothing no with the upon which the
right the lien is founded The why attorney
has lien is that he has contributed by his labor and
skl to the obtaining OF the Judgment (head Vs. Dup
per, 6 T. R. St12 And the manner in which the value
and fixed by statute left to the private agreement Of
parties is entirely independent of his right to the lien
The learned Justice seems to think, that the rate of
compensation between attorney and client fixed by
positive provision Of law the lien Of the attorney
longer exist because the amount extent of it
is no longer regulated by statute The fact that it
must be ascerained by other means-by proof of the
private agreement Of the parties by proof OF guam
supposing that right has been taken away that in
depended upon the precise amount value Of the
service The same reasoning would apply with equal
force against the right of lien in any where tho
demand unqudated 1t is not essential to the
istence of lien that the amount should be hquidated
ed as to one that 10 lquidated. Gross Iien The
tailor who repairs garment has lien upon it to the
been made to the prices and the attorney have
lien upon the judgment to the extent of the value OF
his labor, where the parties have made no agreement
to the rate OF compensation. 1t ia possible that
our courts, under the Code, might, in the absence
of any proof of the private understanding Of the
party way indemnity for his expenses IS the proper
measure Of compensation, in an action brought by
attorney against hts client determining the amount
extent Of the attorneys lien upon the Judgment irr
stead of proof of the actual value Of the service rendered
by him in obtaining it, Be that as it may, whatever
may be the means hereafter adopted for ascerainng the
amount or extent Of the lien, think that it is quite
clear that the right to it remains unimpaired and that
it isthe duty Of courts to enforce and protect it. The
order was appealable 1t was made upon summary ap-
plication after Judgment, and in matter affecting sub
stantal right. (Sec 249, 81
Judge Woodr uf-I concur in the result to which Judge
DAILY has arrived
lDgraham, First JudgeI do not assent to the above
conclusions for the stated by the motion
originally 1t is unnecessary to repeat them here my
brethren agreed that the attorney lien s remains
Tv,eo< vacoI aud NVue,ccs
BowERY TnEATRE.-The amusements for this evening
are The Ragpicker of Paris" and " Sweethearts and
Wives" Mr. E. Eddy and Mr. c. Burke viii sustain the
principal characters. MIR. Eddy is actor Of great
celebrity and Mr. Burke is considered of the best
representatives. we have of Yankee character.
BROADWAY THEATRE-Shakspeare's excellent produc-
ton of 6 Hamlet Prince Of Denmark is the pieco
selected fer this evening Mr. Forrest appearing Ham
let character in which he is very much admired. The
other leading partsEi be filled by Barry Conway and
Madame Ponis The amuAements will close with " Tho
Obstinate Family"
BURROWS THEATE-The excellent company of come
dams attached to this theatre appear night
in two fsvorite pieces Civilization" and One Thou
sand Mllners Wanted for the Gold Dgyngs" In these
nearly all Burtons company appear and no doubt they
will afford the vsiters the delight which tAeY
usually experience.
NATIONAL THEATRE This little theatre Is in very
prosperous If full houses be index Mr. Pury