Dienst v. McCaffrey

New York Court of Common Pleas

Dienst v. McCaffrey

32 N.Y.S. 818, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 200

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedFebruary 15, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 818 (Dienst v. McCaffrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dienst v. McCaffrey, 32 N.Y.S. 818, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 200 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PRYOR, J.

An attorney’s lien on a judgment for his costs and compensation, though without notice, prevails over the lien of the creditor in a supplementary proceeding against the party recovering the judgment. Upon the examination of a third party in a supplementary proceeding, it was discovered that the execution debtor held a judgment against him, and thereupon an order was entered requiring him to pay the judgment in satisfaction of the execution creditor. The attorney who procured the judgment now intervenes, with a motion to vacate that order and to protect his lien. • The judgment against the third party is, of course, available only to the extent of the execution debtor’s interest in it. The attorney has. a lien on the judgment for the amount of his costs and compensation. Washburn v. Mott (Cir. Ct.) 12 N. Y. Supp. 111; Guliano v. Whitenack (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 30 N. Y. Supp. 415; Lee v. Oil Co., 126 N. Y. 579, 27 N. E. 1018; Palmer v. Van Orden, 64 How. Pr. 79. Notice of the lien is not necessary to its efficacy. Keeler v. Keeler, 51 Hun, 505, 4 N. Y. Supp. 580; Guliano v. Whitenack, supra; Washburn v. Mott, supra. The motion is granted, with costs; but, finding in the papers no proof of the amount of the attorney’s compensation, it must be ascertained upon a reference. 1 Bliss’ Code, p. 77.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PRYOR, J.

An attorney’s lien on a judgment for his costs and compensation, though without notice, prevails over the lien of the creditor in a supplementary proceeding against the party recovering the judgment. Upon the examination of a third party in a supplementary proceeding, it was discovered that the execution debtor held a judgment against him, and thereupon an order was entered requiring him to pay the judgment in satisfaction of the execution creditor. The attorney who procured the judgment now intervenes, with a motion to vacate that order and to protect his lien. • The judgment against the third party is, of course, available only to the extent of the execution debtor’s interest in it. The attorney has. a lien on the judgment for the amount of his costs and compensation. Washburn v. Mott (Cir. Ct.) 12 N. Y. Supp. 111; Guliano v. Whitenack (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 30 N. Y. Supp. 415; Lee v. Oil Co., 126 N. Y. 579, 27 N. E. 1018; Palmer v. Van Orden, 64 How. Pr. 79. Notice of the lien is not necessary to its efficacy. Keeler v. Keeler, 51 Hun, 505, 4 N. Y. Supp. 580; Guliano v. Whitenack, supra; Washburn v. Mott, supra. The motion is granted, with costs; but, finding in the papers no proof of the amount of the attorney’s compensation, it must be ascertained upon a reference. 1 Bliss’ Code, p. 77.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 818, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dienst-v-mccaffrey-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack