Case Name: Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Higgins
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-18
Citations: 20 N.Y.S. 746
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Higgins.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 20
Pages: 746–746

Head Matter:
Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Higgins.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
November 18, 1892.)
Attorney’s Lien—Reference to Determine Amount.
In proceedings against an attorney to compel him to deliver property in his possession belonging to plaintiff, where it appears that, though the attorney’s claim is exceedingly indefinite, yet some amount may be due him by reason of his retainer by plaintiff, a reference is properly ordered to ascertain the amount thereof, giving plaintiff the option of making a deposit sufficient to secure what-„ ever amount maybe established on the refereece, since an attorney is not deprived of his lien simply because his claim is indefinite.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Proceedings by the Taylor Iron & Steel Company against Cecil C. Higgins to deliver up certain papers. Prom an order denying the motion, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien and Lawrence, JJ.
W. P. Fisher, Jr., for appellant. C. C. Higgins, in pro. per.

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 absolüte 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. All concur. .