Case Name: In re RUBEL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05-21
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 63
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re RUBEL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 63–64

Head Matter:
In re RUBEL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 21, 1909.)
Attorney and Client (§ 182 )—Lien fob Services—Summary Obdeb to Deliver Papers Subject Thereto.
Where an attorney, suing for his services, offered to hand over papers of his client in his possession on the appointment of a referee to pass on the value of his services and the giving of security, which his client refused, he should not be deprived of his lien by a summary order to de liver the papers to his client, and the order should be modified by requiring security for any sum found to be due him.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. § 403; Dec. Dig. § 182 ]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Application by Max Rubel for an order requiring Charles L. Burr, an attorney, to turn over to him a bond and mortgage in his possession. The order was granted, and the attorney appeals.
Order modified.
Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Charles S. Mackenzie (Burt D. Whedon, of counsel, and William E. Wood, on the brief), for appellant.
Maurice B. & Daniel W. Blumenthal (Daniel W. Blumenthal, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary order of the Special Term requiring appellant, an attorney, to deliver up a bond .and mortgage within 24 hours and to pay $10 costs of motion. The .attorney had a lien upon these papers, which had been delivered to hdm by his client, for services rendered, of which he could not be deprived by the summary order of the court. He had commenced an action against his client to' recover for his services,.when this application was made to compel the surrender. He offered to hand over all the papers in his possession upon the appointment of a referee to pass upon the value of his services and upon the giving of security, which the client refused. If the client stood upon his legal rights to defend the action brought for services rendered and to demand a jury trial, then the attorney was entitled to stand upon his legal lien upon the papers.
The order should be modified, by requiring that the client should give security in the amount of $7,500 to' secure any sum to be found due from the petitioner to the respondent, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant.