The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-03-09
The Court of Appeals on Attorneys
Fees.

rcess
The Court OF Appeals has just unan-
imously reversed an order Of the APP
pellate Division Of this department
based on an opinion OF that court hold
ing that an agreement Of q lawyer en-
titlinR him to one-half OF recovery in
the event OF success was uncomfortable.
Judge MARTIN, in this matter Of FITz-
sIMoNs, says:
1T 10 dificun 10 see how the court below could
have properly reached the conclusion that the agree
men, was unconsconable without proof as to the
amount the appellant would have received II such
lien had been established and enforced, or OF the
entire services performed by the appellant and his
associate or OF the actual expenses 10 which they
were subjected and the other facts relating 10 the
subject"
The Court Of Appeals holds that the
Appellate Division had no jurisdiction
to review this question, when there was
no issue raising it or trial presenting the
facts relating thereto, and that the ques-
ton whether the amount claimed was
uncomfortable must first be properly
presented by proof on trial. and be
passed upon by the trial court. Fifty
per centum is not necessarily an im-
proper share for lawyer.
In another case, that Of FISCHER
HANSEN against the Brooklyn Heights
Railroad Company, the Court Of Appeals
has just reversed judgment Of the APP
pellate Division OF the Second Depart
ment which had sustained a demurrer
to a complaint involving the question
whether defendant who settles with a
plaintiff without the knowledge Of the
plaintiffs attorney can thus get rid Of
the lawyers lien and escape liability to
account to him for his share of the amount
paid.
A man named LOUIS OLSEN sued the
Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company
for the loss of his right leg OLSEN
made a written agreement with an at
torney, Mr.. FISCHER HANSEN, by which
the lawyer was TO receive so per cent. of
the verdict The railroad company
settled with the plaintiff for 81 500 with
out notice to the lawyer and the plain
tiff, after he had received the money,
went back to Norway. The lawyer then
sued the company for $3.50, one-half
Of the amount paid in settlement. The
railroad company demurred To the COM
plant on the ground that there was no
cause Of action stated Both the Special
Term and the Appellate Division sus-
tanned the demurrer, and the Court Of
Appeals has now unanimously reversed
the judgment Of the Appellate Division.
The Court Of Appeals, In its opinion
by Judge vAss, calls attention % its
decision In the Peri case where II wac
held that the statute created a lion ia
favor 81 the attorney on hls clients
oaus. 81 action. and whatever form u
may assume IN the course - litigation.
and enables him Ia follow the prooeeis
In the hands ~ third parties, without
regard to any settlement before or after
judgment
Although the percentage 10 whlch ia.
attorney ss entitled 10 this aston was
no, the paint ia Issue. "a. oass 10 another
authority sustaining the right ~ q i.s-
yer ~ raiin even ~ J..I cant beosuss
tbs Axf.sissni bsfoIs the oouu pro-
sldsd fs thai I,s1n.ntass
We Lslays that, save ln q moot o.
usoidiHsiy oasS, ~ p.f osi,i ~ oAs hall
~ tbs safdia s recovery, 10 ioo musi.
~ Ls ci.Assad b., ti.s ls. ~ ssiilsui by
ti.sss iss ossas slI,.slly I.nIinlls ahy
siiofnsy a. Asks . osbtfsi foI susL
lsufaaSlsSs - Lao An saa,.fs