Fenwick v. . Metropolitan Street Railway Company

New York Court of Appeals

Fenwick v. . Metropolitan Street Railway Company

66 N.E. 1108, 173 N.Y. 633, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 1273

DecidedFebruary 17, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 66 N.E. 1108 (Fenwick v. . Metropolitan Street Railway Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fenwick v. . Metropolitan Street Railway Company, 66 N.E. 1108, 173 N.Y. 633, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 1273 (N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal was argued at the same time and is governed by the same rules of law as the appeal of Fischer-Hansen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. (173 N. Y. 492). That case was presented by a demurrer to the complaint and resulted below in a judgment for the defendant, which was reversed upon appeal to this court. This case was tried at Special Term, but the judgment there rendered in favor, of the plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Division and a new trial was granted. Each case involved the question whether the lien of the attorney of record for the plaintiff in an action extends to the fund created by a settlement made by the parties in good faith without his consent. We held that it did and that the defendant in paying over the fund without providing for the lien paid at its peril. While the cases differ somewhat in their facts they are controlled by the same principle and must result in the same judgment. For the reasons stated in the opinion rendered in the Fiseher-Hcmsen case we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and affirm the judgment of the Special Term, with costs in all courts.

Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur; Gray, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal was argued at the same time and is governed by the same rules of law as the appeal of Fischer-Hansen v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. (173 N. Y. 492). That case was presented by a demurrer to the complaint and resulted below in a judgment for the defendant, which was reversed upon appeal to this court. This case was tried at Special Term, but the judgment there rendered in favor, of the plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Division and a new trial was granted. Each case involved the question whether the lien of the attorney of record for the plaintiff in an action extends to the fund created by a settlement made by the parties in good faith without his consent. We held that it did and that the defendant in paying over the fund without providing for the lien paid at its peril. While the cases differ somewhat in their facts they are controlled by the same principle and must result in the same judgment. For the reasons stated in the opinion rendered in the Fiseher-Hcmsen case we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and affirm the judgment of the Special Term, with costs in all courts.

Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur; Gray, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.E. 1108, 173 N.Y. 633, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenwick-v-metropolitan-street-railway-company-ny-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack