The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-01-17
CASES OF INTEREST

Garnishing an Attorneys COntIn- gent Fee.-Young attorneys Worklns on 8 contingent basis may be interest ed in Modlin vs Smith (Court or Ap- peals of Georgia9 79 Southeastern Re- porter S2, especially if there are wolves proWlinE about the door and fundsat hand are reminiscent of that dash line known in algebra as minus. Itsappears from the record that Smith, as an attorney representing 8 Mrs. Randolph in an action against the Seaboard Air Line Railway for dam ages for personal injuries, under the terms of his employment was to re- ceive, as a fee for his services, a pro portionate part of whatever amount. might be recovered by her. Mrs. Randolph recovered a verdict against the. Railway for $9,926.31 and the judgment was affirmed. Soon there after Mrs Modiin, as adnintstratrk of a Wiley Rice, sued out garnlsh- naent, and caused summons of gar nishnent to be served upon an agent of the Seaboard Air Line Railway. In the affidavit upon which the gar nishm ent was predicated, the admin istratrix swore that Smith owed the estate of Wiley Rice $4,655 as prin- cipal and interest upon judgment rendered by the city court of Atlanta, and that she had reason to apprehend the loss of that sum, Or some part thereof, unless process of garnish- ment was issued. The Railway de- nied the fact that it had in its hands funds. belonging to Smith. but ack- nowledged that it understood Smith was the owner of and entitled to a part of the judgment in favor of Mrs. Randolph. The court says in part: .'Conceding that there was a joint ownership by Mrs. Randolph and Smith, as client and attorney, in the fund recovered against the railway company, we. do not think garnish- ment would be- the proper remedy to reach the interest of Smith as a joint owner of this money. A garnishing creditor stands in no bet ter position as against the garnishee than the debtor himself does! So while Smith, as; an attorney. at law, might collect for his client the amount of the judgment against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Smith as an individual-not an attorney at favor of Mrs. Randolph, enforce the payment of his interest in that judt:-s nent, no matter what his interest might be- Conceding the utmost con tention of counsel for plaintiff in er- TOT, to wit, that Smith had a joint undivided interest amounting to half the debt by the railway company, tEe lower court rightly. decided that the interest could not be reached by gar. nishrnent. A debt due jointly to the oeIenoantf ana another cannot De reached by garnishment in an action against the main defendant = But aside from this view the judg
 ment of the lower court was right. because an attorney at law, where his fee as attorney for the plaintiff is payable by special contract out of the proceeds of the suit, has merely an inchoate lien. .* The attOr- ney's lien is. inchoate as soon assstI1e action is comm enced.ssf* It is essential to show the right Of the plaintiff to recover before the lien can be perfected or established; and this is done in any case in-which the plain tiff has finally recovered. But, even after judgment,sthe attorney who re- covered the Judgment has only a lien This lien cannot be disregarded by the debtor who has notice of the ffen, either Nbefore or after judgment;s but it is, after all, but a lfen.''