Court Opinion

ID: 3601395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:47:45.789815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:18.897307
License: Public Domain

The affidavits read on this motion sufficiently show that the settlement made by the plaintiff in the judgment was in fraud of his attorney and injuriously affected his *Page 51 
rights. The settlement was made for an amount much smaller than the recovery, accepted by the plaintiff without the knowledge of his attorney and with no provision for his payment, and the former immediately absconded and left the state, and is alleged to be wholly irresponsible. Under such circumstances, the order of the Special Term vacating and setting aside the satisfaction entered of record as against the claim of the attorney for his compensation was proper, and should be affirmed without modification so far as it awards that relief. But it went further. It assumed to fix a counsel fee of one hundred dollars, as due from the plaintiff to his attorney, beyond the taxed costs to be protected by the lien. On this motion the court was not at liberty to determine the amount of compensation due to the attorney, if any, over and above the amount of the taxed costs. The latter were presumptively the measure of the attorney's right, and if he was entitled to more by virtue of some express or implied agreement, that amount must be first liquidated in some proper action between the attorney and his client, and cannot be arbitrarily determined upon a motion to vacate the satisfaction entered. The client has the same right to defend against such an asserted liability as belongs to him when any other claim is alleged, the existence or amount of which he disputes.
The order should be modified by striking out so much of it as awards a counsel fee, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly. *Page 52