Case Name: COHEN v. GOLDBERGER; CRAMER v. KRAMER & BETTMAN
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-12-04
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 120
Docket Number: No. 17707
Parties: COHEN v. GOLDBERGER CRAMER v. KRAMER & BETTMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
No. 100
COHEN v. GOLDBERGER CRAMER v. KRAMER & BETTMAN
Supreme Court of Ohio
No. 17707.
Filed 1922;
decided Dec. 4, 1922
114. ATTORENY AND CLIENT — Attor- - neys have a lien on a judgment. obtained by their skill even when the judgment really belongs to a partnership of which, plaintiff was only" a member.
For complete, official syllabus, .se.e 1 Abs. 861

Opinion:
MATTHIAS, J.
Epitomized Opinion-!
First Publication ot thlsiOpiniou
Attorneys — Julius R. Samuels and S. A. Headley, for Cramer; Cobb, Howard & Bailey and Kramer & Bettman (all of. Cincinnati), for Kramer & Bettman and others.
A judgment obtained by Cohen against Góldberger was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and again by the Cupreme Court. Before the judgment was paid Kram'er & Bett-man and others, attorneys for Cohen, filed an intervening petition in the Court of Appeals praying that they be allowed an attorneys' lien on the judgment by virtue of a contract with Cohen that they should receive as fees one-half of the am'ount recovered. Cramer, a creditor of the partnership of Góldberger & Cohen, had previously filed an intervening petition contending that the judgment was partnership assets rather than the property of Cohen. Judgment for Kram|er & Bettman and others on their intervening petition was rendered by the Court of Appeals. Cramer brings error. Held:
Even if the judgment is the property of the partnership and not of Cohen it was obtained by the skill and labor of these attorneys, Kramer & Bettman and others, and as a result they have a lien on the judgment, and the partnership, if entitled to the judgment, must take it incumbered by their legitimate charge. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.