New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-10-21
THE COURTS.

THE LAWYERS SHARE OF A JUDGMENT
LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN L. BROWNS ESTATE
THE JUDGMENTS AGAINST THR CITY.
The late John l.. Brown, the contractor, had
number Of large claims against the city. Jukt before
bis death he placed ono claim of $4,000 in the hands OF
o. W. West for collection lie also employed ex-Judge
Stephen Fullerton and John H. strahan. After his death
these counsel obtained ud mcn in favor Of his estate
for 900, which included interest aud counsel
fees. The city appealed from the Judgment Without
consulting the former counsel attorneys for the heirs
Of John L. Brown compromised this suit for $4,000 and
the other claims for $4,000. in all $4,000. Mr. West,
aiidavits presented by him states the cost OF that
compromise follows: $4,000 10 John Ambrose,
$500 10 Sullivan, KObbe Fowler, $500
to Field Il Drys, and $500 to Mary Ann
Brown TO induce her TO withdraw from her
contest Of the will OF John l.. Brown. Mcssrs. West,
Fullerton and sirahan insisted rat the suit had been
compromised without consulting them. they IN
titled TO as large fees though the whole Judgment had
been collected Mr.. West stated his bargain with JOHN
l. Brown to have been contingent ON his obtaining
Judgment when he receive ~ 600, the costs OF
tine SUIT, gnd Oneia the interest. The Court referred
the matter TO Philo f. Ruggles The suit at that
time IN the of Scaycr against The Mayor. The
widow OF Mr.. Brown, his eXecutlN, asked leave TO be
heard on IA" reference. which was granted MI iuggcs
reported IN favor Of Mr. West, one-alf OF ti interest
then amounting 10 $4,000, the costs to over $4,000
which, with the stipulated 5000, make SECOND. He
alsa reported that Mr. Fullert0ns services were worth
$4,000, and Mr.. sirahans $500, total for these
lawyers OF over $500 for all the lawyers
$50 600. Mr West has since drawn tine amount Of his
costs, 200. under order of the court, leaving
his claim at little $4,000 There Is stall another
large claim by other attorneys against tins estate
From every step IN the proceedings liking the allow
TO West Fullerton and Strahan, the execuiri and
executor have appealed. that there were three aIr
pcals argued together yesterday before the supreme
Court Tnr point most deliberately argued by the APP
peants wac that compulsory reference 60 determine
the amount of attorneys compensation was Illegal
Mr. Fowler. Tor the appellants, presented at length the
common law rule and the statutes OF tins STATE ana
81
pensatOu IN dispute De must bring sUit 20 deter
mine H. the court having ro power over the client, what
t might the attorney as ~ officer THIS,
be- claimed, the common law, ana no statute had
altered 10. ami any statute taking the clients rgrt
Ia "a trial by Jury would be uHoOnst tiIinnll. He also
claimed taHt tie appellants Lad not bad fair hearing
ON the other side ~ Insisted that the representatives
OF the estate, having usesssy sacrificed their RIGHTS
could with that sacrifice tuc rights ~ their counsel
thar the rferre ny iustTtcd IN his decispn aud
that the rcrcsi uvch oi tie estate, los coming vp.ul
tary INTO the proceeding, even II 70 Irregular mad
pred AIDED themselves from o cctiug e. IL rreEuiJrtY
The Court reserved lis decision l.. l. Fowler appoa'c cd
for the cXccGtrN ami exec utOr; Mr Hatch Tor tue at