Court Opinion

ID: 9809922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:33:28.586021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:10.602244
License: Public Domain

Clakk, O. d.,
concurring: O’Brien borrowed from the plaintiff bank $8,500 to be used in building bridges for Kershaw County, S. 0., and to secure the same assigned his contract with said county. O’Brien brought suit against the County of Kershaw to collect $20,000, the sum he alleged to be due on said contract, and employed his codefendants Thomas W. Davis and P. A. Wilcox in the litigation. To this action the bank was not a party.
In said litigation judgment was recovered in O’Brien’s name for $3,090.59. This sum was paid over to O’Brien’s lawyers. The bank, *341thereupon, demanded payment to it under its lien o£ which counsel had notice when they began the suit, alleging that the bank did not retain Davis and "Wilcox and would not have done so because it had its own counsel and had refused to retain O’Brien’s lawyers at the time.
The defendants, in their answer, admitted the collection of the $3,-090.59, stated that they had retained $2,500 as their fee; that O’Brien had paid them $950 additional, and that they had not paid anything to the plaintiff, “but politely and positively refused to do so,” and they did not tender anything. TJiey further averred that the plaintiff contracted with them to prosecute the action. The complaint averred that plaintiff had no connection with the suit, had refused to be liable for fees and expenses, and took no part except to give information when asked by the defendant.
At the trial the judge required the plaintiff to amend his complaint and to rest his action upon a quantum meruit for services rendered. The plaintiff put on evidence that it had not contracted with Davis and Wilcox nor assented to their employment. The defendants offered no evidence. The plaintiff’s plea raised the issue that it was not liable to the defendants in any sum and it refused to amend. Thereupon the judge directed a nonsuit.
The questions raised are of grave and general importance. At comr mon law counsel not only had no lien on the fund, but in England to this day they cannot recover for their services. In this State counsel can recover their fees, but they have no lien on the funds recovered. In the Federal Court there is no such lien “unless given by State statute.” 6 Corpus Juris., 766, and note 73. It is not likely that any Legislature will give counsel a lien upon the recovery, for this would give them priority to the client and would make counsel a necessary party to every action, and would reverse the age-long principle that has made cham-perty illegal. Therefore the counsel had no lien on the fund even against O’Brien, but merely a simple contract debt, and they could not possibly have any lien against the prior lien of the bank, which was not even a party to that action. Their right to set up a counter claim against the bank depends upon whether there was any contract, express or implied, on the part of the bank. This is alleged by defendants Davis and Wilcox (who put in no proof of it) and is denied by the bank, who sustained it by testimony. The burden of this issue is on defendants to prove that the plaintiff was indebted to them for their fees, by way of counter claim. Even if counsel had a lien on the'fund against O’Brien (which they did not), such lien was subject to the prior lien O’Brien had given the bank. He could not cancel the bank’s lien nor could his lawyers do so merely because he owed them for their services.
*342Tbe judge could not nonsuit the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants bad proven their counterclaim, for the burden was on them, and, besides, they had put on no evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff’s testimony to the contrary, and this was a matter for the jury. The testimony of the plaintiff was that it had not waived its lien in any way.
Nor could the judge nonsuit the plaintiff for refusing to amend by abandoning its plea that 'it owed the defendants nothing. Indeed, it is not easy to see how the recovery, by counsel of a fund (not one cent of which the plaintiff has received) could entitle them to a claim that they had benefited the plaintiff to that extent, though not a party to the action. The plaintiff received no benefit at all, much less can it be benefited to the extent of $3,090.59, for which it has got nothing at all.
The issue should be “Is the plaintiff indebted by way of' counter claim to the defendants, and if so, how much?” In any aspect, it was error to nonsuit the plaintiff, for the burden of the issue was upon the defendants.