Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-04

Supreme Court Oplnioa Holds That Lien
Law 10 Not Retroactive.


The Supreme Court has delivered an
opinion In the case % Joseph y. Pot
ter W the Ajax Mining company re-
yersing the cause with directions to the
trial court TO set the verdict aside.
Two opinions w-r. rendered la the cas-.
one by Justice Miner. concurrcd In BY
chief Justice iiarch. and the other by
Justice hsnkin. Roth opinions reach
the same conclusion. The plaintir
Potter wa. injured In the defendant
company's nina and sued Ia recover
fis.Oco damages. lie mad. "a contract
with his attorney MersrH. .. T.. Page
and Powers. ftrsup and Lippmsn TO
pay them. aa compensation for SER
vices. one half Of any amount rccov-
erred rs Judgment or by settlement.
with the further understanding that
no settlement should be made without
the consent ~ all parties having BEEN
flr.t obtained. Potter settled the case
without consent OF tn. lawyers for
n.iso. and the case was afterwards dis
missed.
The attorneys then moved 10 set aside
the dismissal. claiming fraud on Pot.
tef's part, and the court granted the
motion. The case was tried a. deter.
mine what the attorneys should re-
oelyc. the court holding that Potter ~.
ceivcd his rights, but lnstriictlnE the
Jury To md what sum Potter would
have recovered and 10 return verdict
for 20 per cent 81 the amount he would
have hccn entitled Ia, The Jury ron.
defed n verdict for o. 900. and from this
tho appeal was TAKEN.
Justice Miner, In writing the opln-
Ion % the majority ~ the court. holds
that the case does not come under the
plaintiffs especially rely, because the
cause of action arose before that law
went Into .ftcct, and the law was not
retroactive under a proper conaiiera.
tion Of section ste0. revised statutes
which provide that no part ~ the re.
yised statutes shall he retroactive un.
less expressly 10 declared. The settle.
ment by Potter was coliunive, frnudu.
lent and prejudiciai 10 the rights of his
attorneys, say the court, ana the at.
torneyH were entitled 10 proceed To
Judgment under tho rules of court
TO protect attorneys from dishonest
clients. hut they did hot choose 10 DO
thia but proceeded under the attorneys'
Hen act. which. the court holds, was no,
retroactive. and for that reaAon the
Judgment II reversed.
Justice HaHkin holds that IN IN.
agreement between Potter and his at
torneyh there were two ntipulatlons
which were against public policy. the
one providing that no settlement should
be made without the consent * 10th
parties, ana thr one By which the at /.
torneyu Agreed 10 advance the neces.
hary costs and witness feeA Ito quotes
SEVERAL cases, which hold both ntipuia.-
lions 10 be- against public policy, and
the second, he declare. 20 be chAmpar-
tous, because " tended 10 Increase and
promote litigation. The order setting
vido the dismissal obtained by Potter
after he had settled with tha Gamma ~.
was not obtained al his Instance but
by his attorneys, for the purpose Of
enfwcins champertour contract. and
should never hav. been granted. The
motion to st aside the order dlsmlsslng
cause, he holds should have been de-.
MED. andt his court should roverne ana
dismiss the cause.