Case Name: ELIZABETH FURST v. HERMAN MULLER et al.
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1896-01
Citations: 11 Ohio C.C. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIZABETH FURST v. HERMAN MULLER et al.
Judges: Before Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 11
Pages: 178–180

Head Matter:
(First Circuit—Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
Jan. Term, 1896.)
Before Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.
ELIZABETH FURST v. HERMAN MULLER et al.
1. Assignment of interest in judgment to attorney, in casé — Where a-party assigns to his attorney a half interest in a judgment recovered by his services, who in turn assigns his interest to a third party, and then absconds, but his assignee employs other counsel to prosecute the case in the higher courts, who however-are not permitted by the client to attend to the case further, he engaging other counsel to do so, such assignment of part interest in the judgment is valid, and the counsel afterward employed by the client to attend to the case has no claim against the share-originally assigned by the client to the attorney. ‘,
Appeal from ' the court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
The late Herman Muller recovered a judgment against the1 P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. in a suit for damages brought by Frederick Quatkemeyer. For his services he was assigned one-half of the judgment, the understanding being that he should conduct the case in the circuit and supreme courts, ■if necessary. Muller in turn assigned all of his half of the judgment to Philip Volkert, and afterward assigned part of his interest in the same judgment to Mrs. Furst. He then disappeared, and Goebel & Bettinger, who were employed by Volkert to look after the case, were not permitted to act, but W. W. Symmes, who had been employed by Quatkemeyer,did appear, and secured an affirmance of the judgment in the supreme court. The matter then came on for hearing as to who was entitled to the fund under Muller’s assignments.

Opinion:
Swing, J.
We think the assignment-©!- Quatkemeyer to Muller of one-half the judgment against the railroad company was a valid assignment and vested in Muller a good title to one-half of the same as against the railroad company, said company having been properly notified of the assignment. As between Furst and Volkert, to whom Muller had assigned his half, the evidence seems clear to us that the assignment to Volkert on May 22, 1893, was prior in. time to that to Furst on November 27, 1893, and that it passed to Volkert the interest of Muller in his fees in the case, and being prior in time is prior in right, there being no intervening equity; and Muller having assigned to Volkert his half of the judgment after its rendition and assignment to him by Quatkemeyer, the superior equitable title of Volkert was converted' into a valid legal assignment.
We are further of the opinion that an agreement was-entered into between Quatkemeyer, Muller and Goebel & Bet tinger, whereby Quatkemeyer and the- other parties agreed that Goebel & Bettinger were to carry on the litigation which Muller under his contract was bound to do, and that Goebel & Bettinger offered to carry out the contract on their part, but that Quatkemeyer assigned the contract and employed other counsel, and thereby put it beyond the power of Goebel & Bettinger to act. Quatkemeyer's conduct in violating his contract cannot, therefore, avail.him to defeat the right of Muller and his assignees to recover the half assigned. Neither can-Quatkemeyer's attorney be entitled to receive, from the half assigned to -Muller, compensation for services in the prosecution of the suit. He must look to Quatkemeyer, whose attorney alone he was.
Jacob Bhroder, for Yolkert.
W. Austin Goodman, for Elizabeth Purst.
W. W. Symmes, for Quatkemeyer; and Robert Ramsey, for the P., 0., 0. & St. L. Ry. Co.
Decree for Volkert.