Case Name: Grove M. Harwood, Resp't, v. Oscar H. La Grange et al., Impl'd, App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-12-14
Citations: 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 905
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grove M. Harwood, Resp’t, v. Oscar H. La Grange et al., Impl’d, App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 42
Pages: 905–906

Head Matter:
Grove M. Harwood, Resp’t, v. Oscar H. La Grange et al., Impl’d, App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 14, 1891.)
Attorneys—Contingent pee—Lien.
Defendant La Grange was employed to bring certain suits, his compensation to be contingent on recovery and to be one-half thereof. He employed plaintiff and another as counsel, under a similar arrangement. A settlement having been made and a large sum received thereon, an adjust- ■ ment of the fees to be received by each was made. In an action to establish and enforce plaintiff’s lien on the fund, Held, that the agreement for a contingent fee was sufficient to impress an equitable lien on said fund, and a judgment enforcing the adjustment made was proper.
Appeal by defendants La Grange, Smith and Wibert from judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendant Buel, declaring that they have equitable liens on the fund in question for their professional services.
Action to establish and enforce a lien claimed by plaintiff as counsel in certain actions. Defendant La Grange was employed to bring certain actions on an agreement that his fee should be contingent on success, and that he should receive one-half of the sum recovered. He employed plaintiff and the defendant Buel as counsel, on an agreement that their compensation should be dependent on success. Some of the actions were settled, and a large sum received which was placed in the hands of a trustee, and an adjustment of the fees to be received by each was made by La Grange, Buel and the plaintiff. Judgment was rendered awarding to each the sums so agreed upon.
O. H. La Grange (Charles Strauss and Wm. Tharp, of counsel), for app’lts; William Smith (O. P. Buel and Grove M. Harwood, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykhan, J.
We cannot yield assent to the argument of the appellants on this appeal. On the contrary we find all the findings of fact made by the trial judge sustained by sufficient proof, and upon such findings the decision does ample justice to all the parties.
The agreement for a contingent fee was sufficient to impress an equitable lien upon the fund, and the judgment effectuates the lien and enforces it.
The pleadings in the action are voluminous and the facts are numerous and the findings of the trial judge are lengthy and numerous. They have all received careful attention and exami nation, but it seems unnecessary in this opinion to go over them in detail, as we concur in the findings and judgment.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.