Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of The Taylor Iron & Steel Co., App't, v. Cecil C. Higgins, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-18
Citations: 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 645
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of The Taylor Iron & Steel Co., App’t, v. Cecil C. Higgins, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of The Taylor Iron & Steel Co., App’t, v. Cecil C. Higgins, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed November 18, 1892.)
Attorneys—Lien—Reference.
In a proceeding to compel the delivery of papers in an attorney’s possession, where his claim for services is indefinite, but it appears that some amount is due him, it is proper to direct a reference to ascertain the amount due, giving the plaintiff an option to deposit a sum sufficient to secure such claim as may be established on the reference.
Appeal from an order of the special term denying the prayer of the petition that respondent return coupons held by him as attorney, with costs, and ordering a reference to take testimony as to the value of professional services, alleged to have been rendered.
W. P. Fisher, Jr., for app’lt; C. C. Higgins, resp’t in person.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
Upon an examination of these papers it appears that some amount may be due to the respondent because of his retainer by the plaintiff. The appellant, therefore, was not entitled to an absolute delivery to it of the property in question without securing in some manner the lien of the attorney for such amount. It is undoubtedly true that the attorney, in the presentation of his claim, has been exceedingly indefinite as to the nature of the services, and the circumstances out of which his claim arose; but this fact did not deprive him of the lien which he had for such amount as might be found to be due to him from the appellant. Although the appellant now seeks to claim some improper conduct upon the part of the attorney which has deprived him of all right of compensation, we do not think the court should try such an issue upon affidavits. It pursued the proper course in directing a reference to ascertain the amount which might be due to the attorney, giving to the appellant the option of making a deposit with the chamberlain of the city of New York of an amount sufficient to secure whatever claim the respondent might establish upon such reference. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
O'Brien and Lawrence, JJ., concur.