Case Name: DAVID WOOLF, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON JACOBS, Impleaded with another, Defendant and Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1879-03-03
Citations: 13 Jones & S. 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: DAVID WOOLF, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON JACOBS, Impleaded with another, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 45
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
DAVID WOOLF, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON JACOBS, Impleaded with another, Defendant and Appellant.
Before Van Vorst and Speir, JJ.
Decided March 3, 1879.
II. Attorney’s lien.
,1. Attachment for contempt.
' (a) Lien op attorney upon pine imposed by warrant op attachment PROTECTED.
This was a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment issued against defendant, Jacobs, committing him to jail for thirty days, for a contempt of court in violating an injunction contained in an order for his examination as a judgment debtor, issued after execution returned, by transferring certain of his property, and fining him $2,740.54, and ordering him to stand committed until said fine should be paid.
From the face of the warrant it appeared that this sum of $2,470.54 was composed as follows : $2,068.69, part of the amount remaining due on the judgment; $252.25, costs of expenses of the .proceedings to punish for contempt; $250, counsel,fees in such proceedings ; it also appeared that the property transferred was of •the value of $2,068,29.
The warrant was issued December 17, 1874. Upon the motion it appeared that plaintiff, after the issuing of the warrant, assigned the judgment, and that the assignee had satisfied it of record, and that, at the time of the assignment, plaintiff, for the consideration of $1, released the defendant, Jacobs, from the fine and all liability by virtue thereof; it also appeared that the defendant had been actually imprisoned under the warrant for over thirty days.
It also appeared that the costs and allowance -Xo-. 1 in the judgment amounted to $2,779.49 ; that plaintiffs attorney had expended large sums of motley for disbursements, and had been paid nothing, either on account of his disbursements or of his services ; and that plaintiff’s attorney served a notice,of Hen on the judgment and attachment proceedings upon the defend ant’s attorney, prior to the aforesaid assignment and release.
The motion was denied at special term. From the order entered on said denial defendant appealed. The real respondent was plaintiff’s attorney.
Samuel J. Crooks, counsel, for appellant.
C. Bainbridge Smith, counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order must be affirmed with costs.