The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-05-04
Supreme Court Decision Affecting
Rights of Attorneys.
LIEN LAW IS INVOLVED
COURT colds 1T Is NOT RETRO
ACTIVE.
Judge Baskin, In Minority Opinion,
Holds That the Agreement Be-
tween Powers, Straup & Lippman
and Client Was Champertous-
Habeas Corpus Case.

A decision Of much Importance wa:
rendered yesterday by the suprem,
court when it held. in reversing the cast
Of Joseph F. Potter VS.. the Ajax Min.
ing company, that the attorneys lier
| law is not retroactive. Two opinion:
were rendered both favoring the rever-
sal of the case. Justice Miner wrote the
main opinion. which is concurred in by
Chief Justice Bartch. Justice BaSkin
I in the course of an opinion in which he
/ reaches the same conclusion, holds that
contract between an attorney and a
client to share the proceeds of a judg-
ment in damage suit, is champertous
Potter was injured in the Ajax mine
and brought suit through his attor-
neys, j. Z. Page and Powers, Straup &
Lippman, for $1,000 damages. He
made contract with his attorneys to
give as compensation for their services
one-half of any amount recovered as
: judgment or by settlement of the case,
with the agreement that no settlement
should be made without the consent of
DO parties, and that the attorneys
should settle the costs and advance
! fees. Afterward Potter settled the case
without consulting his attorneys for
$1,l90, and an order was entered dis
missing the case.
The attorneys entered motion to set
aside the dismissal, claiming fraud on
Potter's part, and the court set it
aside. The case was tried to determine
what the attorneys should receive. the
court holding that Potter received his
rights, but instructing the jury to find
what sum Potter would have recovered
and to return a verdict for 30 per cent
of the amount he would have been en-
titled to. The jury rendered a verdict
for $1,000, and from this the appeal was
taken.
Justice Miner, in writing the opin-
ion of the majority of the court, holds
that the case does not come under the
attorneys lien law, upon which the
plaintiffs especially rely because the
cause of action arose before that law
went into effect, and the law sYas not
retroactive under a proper considera-
ton of section 2490. revised statutes,
which provide that no part of the re-
vised statutes shall be retroactive I'M
less expressly so declared.
The settlement by Potter was col
lusive, fraudulent and prejudicial to the
rights of his attorneys, says the court,
and the attorneys were entitled to pro-
coed to judgment under the rules of
court to protect attorneys from diShoI-
est clients, but they did not choose to
do this, but proceeded under the attor-
neys' lien act, which, the court holds,
was not retroactive, and for that rea-
son the judgment is reversed.
A Champertous Agreement.
Justice Baskin, in his dissenting opin-
ion, holds that in the agreement be-
tween Potter and his attorneys there
were two stipulations which were
against public policy, the one provid-
ing that no settlement should be made
without the consent of both parties
and the one by which the attorneys
agreed to advance the necessary costs
and witness fees. He quotes several
cases, which hold both stipulations to
be against public policy, and the sec
ond. he declares to be champertous, be-
cause it tended to increase and pro-
mote litigation. The order setting aside
the dismissal obtained by Potter after
he had settled with the company was
not obtained at his instance, but by his
attorneys, for the purpose of enforc-
ing a champertous contract, and should
never have been granted. The motion I;
to set aside the order dismissing cause I
he decides, should have been denied, and .
this court should reverse and dismiss !
the cause.
Il do not wish to be understood |
said Judge Baskin, in concluding his
opinion, ''aS in any degree approving
the methods resorted to in settling the
case, for they were reprehensible, but
that fact does not Justify the enforce
nent of the contract"
Eight-juror Contest.