Court Opinion

ID: 8310310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:30.016883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:42.062375
License: Public Domain

Brewer, J., {orally.)
In this case of Jeffries v. Laurie counsel are not present, but as I shall leave the city to-night or in the morn' *789ing I must dispose of it. It is one of those cases that it is not very-pleasant for the court to consider or decide. It is an application by Mr. Jeffries, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Allen A. Kennedy, for an order on Joseph S. Laurie, who was his attorney in a case brought against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, to pay over moneys collected by him, and belonging to the administrator. There has been a long and bitter controversy, which it is not necessary to enter upon, but it appears that in 1879 Mr. Laurie, as the attorney of the administrator, settled the ease which was then pending against the insurance company, and received in cash $9,401. None of that money has ever been paid to the administrator. Mr. Laurie claims that there was an agreement for a contingent fee for one-half the amount collected, and that he went to the expense of two trips to New York city, amounting to $130, leaving, according to his own statement, §4,635.50 belonging to the administrator, and which, on or before the tenth of March, 1880, he stated that he had in his hands for the administrator, and which he was ready to pay over upon the signing of a receipt by him prepared, and recognizing the correctness of the contingent fee. The counsel for Mr. Jeffries in this application is Mr. Crews. At the inception of the litigation against the insurance company Mr. Crews and Mr. Laurie were partners. That partnership was dissolved in 1873 or 1874. There has never been a settlement between those gentlemen of their partnership affairs, and "Mr. Laurie resists this application, on the ground, as alleged in his answer, that his partner had collected from Franklin county large fees, amounting to $15,000 or $20,000, and failed to account with him, and that this proceeding by the administrator, the father-in-law of Mr. Crews, was at the instigation of Mr. Crews, and simply an attempt in this summary way to prevent a settlement of the partnership affairs between the two partners; Mr. Crews being, as claimed, financially irresponsible.
This matter has been here some time, and in the fore part of this term I directed both parties to file affidavits within a certain time, and make such showing as they saw fit to do with reference to the actual affairs,—the underlying facts; and the testimony has been presented. I do not think, from that testimony, that Mr. Laurie has any interest in the Franklin county fees; and, while there is an unsettled partnership account between them, the amount involved therein is nothing like the $9,000 received and retained by Mr. Laurie. Of course, in this summary way no partnership affairs can be settled; and, while it would have relieved this case of all embarrassment if the administrator had filed this application against both Messrs. Crews and Laurie, yet 1 do not think that there is developed enough in the testimony to justify Mr. Laurie in retaining this $4,685, which unquestionably belongs to the administrator. If there was, and there is, an unsettled partnership account between Messrs. Crews and Laurie, the matters involved therein were closed more *790than five years ago, and they ought not now to relieve from the duty resting upon a lawyer, holding money which unquestionably belongs to his client, to pay that money over. If he had any claim to retain that, or any portion of that amount, as between himself and his partner in legal business, it was his duty to have proceeded to an accounting, and have had the matters between himself and his partner adjusted long before this. Whatever might have been the results of such an accounting, from the testimony here it seems very clear to my mind that there would not have been found due Mr. Laurie, if anything, certainly nothing like the $9,000 by him received.
The relations between a lawyer and his client are not those merely of debtor and creditor. The lawyer collects money of his client, so to speak, in trust for him, and it is the duty of the court, in upholding the character of the profession, to see that moneys- so collected are paid to the client. It would be very hard, indeed it would work lasting disgrace to the profession, if, when a lawyer collects money belonging to his client, the only remedy which the client has is a suit at law against the lawyer. There is here a dispute as to whether counsel were entitled to the contingent fee of half the collection. Be it so. Such dispute the court is not called upon to settle in any summary proceeding. But there is no dispute but that $4,635—one-half— does belong to the estate,—to the administrator; and there is no question but that the person who received that money—the whole $9,000— is Mr. Laurie. I do not think that it lies in his mouth to say, having received that money—the whole of it,—“I won’t pay over the half which I admit belongs to the administrator, simply because I have got an unsettled partnership transaction with my former partner in the practice.” He has had time enough to settle that. He admits the amount of $4,625 is due the administrator; and while Mr. Crews may be the son-in-law of the administrator, (and, as is very patent, there is a great deal of bitterness of feeling and a good many things that do not refect much credit on either party,) yet the administrator stands here without the money; Mr. Laurie having received it, admitting that some of it is unquestionably due, and disputing only as to whether such amount should not be paid by his former partner.
As I said in reference to this case at the first of this term, courts will not attempt to settle partnership affairs between members of the bar by any summary proceedings of this nature; but it is also true that they will not permit a failure of such partners to make a settlement, especially when that failure is prolonged for many years, to become an excuse to either partner for holding moneys eoncededly belonging to the client.
E think justice requires that an order should be made—a summary order—for the payment of this undisputed amount into court for the benefit of the administrator; and the order will be that Mr. Laurie, within 90 days, pay to the clerk of this court the sum of $4,635.50.