Case Name: Edward Butcher, Jr., Appellant, v. John L. Henning and William H. McCall, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 97 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 565
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Butcher, Jr., Appellant, v. John L. Henning and William H. McCall, Respondents.
Judges: Present — Putnam and Herrick, JJ.; Matham, P. J.,not sitting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 97
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Edward Butcher, Jr., Appellant, v. John L. Henning and William H. McCall, Respondents.
Judgment — money collected thereon cmd paid to a creditor, the attorney, of the judgment creditor — it cannot he recovered on a reversal of the judgment.
Where an action has been brought, a judgment recovered therein, collected and the money paid to the plaintiff’s attorney, an action will not lie, after the judgment has been reversed, to recover of the attorney the money which, by an agreement between himself and his client, he has retained in payment of a debt due to him from his client.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Edward Butcher, Jr., from a judgment of the Sujxreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk -of the county of Saratoga on the 30th day of October, 1894, upon the dismissal of the complaint directed by the court after a trial at the Saratoga Circuit before the court without a jury.
E. E. Bullard, for the appellant.
William, H. MeGall, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
In Langley v. Warner (3 N. Y. 327) it was held by the Court of Appeals that where a judgment had been collected and the money paid to the attorney who prosecuted the suit, an action will not lie against the attorney to recover back the money after a reversal of the judgment, although by agreement between him and his client he retained the money in payment of a debt due from the latter to him.
The facts in the case cited were quite similar to those appearing in the case under consideration. We are not aware that the doctrine established in Langley v. Warner (supra) has ever been doubted or overruled. (Grauer v. Grauer, 49 N. Y. St. Repr. 354, 355; Wright v. Nostrand, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 381, 386; Simpson v. Hornbeck, 3 Lans. 53, 55; Forstman v. Schulting, 108 N. Y. 110, 113.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Present — Putnam and Herrick, JJ.; Matham, P. J.,not sitting.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.