Case Name: Henry C. Adams, Appellant, v. Peter G. Fox, Executor, impleaded with Lawrence M. Fox, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1869-09
Citations: 40 N.Y. 577
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry C. Adams, Appellant, v. Peter G. Fox, Executor, impleaded with Lawrence M. Fox, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 577–584

Head Matter:
Henry C. Adams, Appellant, v. Peter G. Fox, Executor, impleaded with Lawrence M. Fox, Respondent.
In an action brought by an attorney, setting up an agreement between himself and his client, that his claims for legal services and disbursements in a certain action brought against such client, should be a lien upon and be paid out of any judgment the client should recover in such action against the opposite party, who had notice of the agreement; and alleging that the client did recover a judgment in the action for a considerable amount, but had departed from the State; and praying that he may recover of his client the amount of his claim for such services.- and disbursements, and that the amount so recovered be declared a lien upon the judgment obtained by his client, and that the plaintiff be permitted to issue execution against the judgment debtor of such client to collect the amount of such lien.—Held, on demurrer (reversing the Supreme Court) that such judgment debtor was properly made a party defendant, as well as bis creditor, the client.
(Submitted March 20th, 1869; held over the June term for further consideration,
and decided at the September term, 1869.)
The plaintiff, as an attorney and eonnselor-at-law, performed legal services and paid out moneys by way of xegal disbursements in the defence of two suits, brought by the respondent, as executor, against the defendant, Lawrence ¡M¡. Fox. The complaint, in the present action, fully described the nature of those suits, and claimed $1,606.95 to be due to him for such services and disbursements. It also showed that the defences were successful, and that in one of them, the defendant against whom the actions were brought, recovered a judgment against the plaintiff therein, the present respondent, for the sum of $2,570.34. It was claimed by the complaint, that an agreement was made between the plaintiff and his client, Lawrence M. Fox, by which it was agreed that he should have a lien uponj and be paid out of the judgment the defendant might recover, for his services and disbursements performed and incurred in defending both the suits. That the respondent against whom the judgment was recovered had notice of this agreement, and that the plaintiff’s own client had left the State of New York, leaving the demands due to him wholly unpaid. Judgment was demanded that the plaintiff should recover the amount due to him against his debtor, the defendant, Lawrence M. Fox, that it should be adjudged a lien upon the judgment recovered in his favor against the respondent, and that the plaintiff should be at liberty to issue execution against the respondent, upon that judgment, for the purpose of collecting the amount recovered by him. The executor, Peter G. Fox, demurred to this complaint, assigning several grounds of demurrer, among them the objection that the complaint did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The other defendant answered thje complaint, and the issue of fact arising upon the answer was determined in favor of the, plaintiff by a final judgment. The plaintiff had judgment upon the demurrer at the Special Term, but the General Term reversed it and gave judgment in favor of the defendant, Peter G. Fox. From that judgment, the plaintiff appealed to this court.
BE. O. Adams, appellant in person.
JS. B. Oushney, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mason, J.
The only question presented on this appeal, is from that part of the final judgment reversing the judgment of the Special Term on the demurrer of Peter G. Fox to the plaintiff's complaint. The Special Term gave judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer, and which was reversed by the General Term, and the plaintiff then appealed from the order reversing the Special Term and this court dismissed the appeal, holding the order not appealable. (Adams v. Fox, executor, 27 N. Y. R., 640.) The plaintiff then proceeded in the action and procured a judgment against the other defendant, Lawrence M. Fox, and the defendant, Peter G. Fox, executor, having entered a final judgment upon the decision of General Term on the demurrer, with costs adjusted at $101.90, the plaintiff has appealed therefrom to this court, and this presents the only question in this case. The General Term of the Supreme Court held that Peter G. Fox, executor, was not a proper party defendant in the action, and reversed the judgment of the Special Term and gave judgment for defendant, Peter G., upon his demurrer to the complaint. The General Term also held that there was no joint cause of action shown in the complaint against Lawrence M. and Peter G. Fox, or that the complaint showed no cause of action against Peter G. Fox, executor, and that there was no ground shown for making him a defendant. In this, I think, the Supreme Court were clearly in error. I know of no way the plaintiff could obtain the relief which he seeks in this case but by obtaining the judgment of the Supreme Court settling the amount of his claim for costs, and declaring it a lien upon the judgment against Peter G. Fox as executor.
The plaintiff's complaint seeks just this relief. The plaintiff demands a judgement against L. M Fox for the amount of his bill of costs, for professional services in defending the actions brought by Peter G., and that such judgment against L. M. Fox be decreed an equitable lien upon such judgment against the said Peter G. as executor. And Peter G. was made a party defendant for the obvious reason that he was a proper party to a suit, in which the plaintiff sought a decree, that the said executor pay over to him the amount of the judgment which he should establish against L. M. Fox, upon his claim for professional services, after the same was declared by the court to be a lien upon the said judgment against the said executor.
It was matter of entire indifference to this executor, whether lie paid this judgment to L. M. Fox or to the plaintiff, or whether he paid the plaintiff to the extent of his equitable lien and the balance to L. M. Fox, and, as he stood neutral between them, he should not have interposed any 'defence, or if any, a simple interpleader.
I perceive no difficulty under the Code in seeking the whole relief in this suit. The plaintiff now may unite both legal and equitable causes of action in the same complaint. (Code, § 167; 9 How. Pr. R., 123.) The plaintiff had an attorney's lien upon this judgment and is entitled to equitable relief to enforce it, where no other adequate remedy exists. (Haight v. Holcom, 16 How. Pr. R., 173; 18 N. Y. R., 368; 15 J. R., 407; 12 Mees. & W., 45.) This judgment of the General Term reversing that of the Special Term, and giving judgment for the defendant Peter G. Fox, upon his demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Term affirmed with costs.