Ingram v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ingram v. Johnson

1918 OK 643, 176 P. 241, 71 Okla. 171, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 905

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 19, 1918

Docket5934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1918 OK 643 (Ingram v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingram v. Johnson, 1918 OK 643, 176 P. 241, 71 Okla. 171, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 905 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This action was brought • by defendants in error, in the district court of Carter county, to enjoin plaintiffs in error -from- interfering with the possession of certain "described premises held under oil and gas leases. The controversy was between the different lessees. of th^ owners of the land. After the appeal was filed in this court, the lessees compromised thej controver. sy and joined in a motion to dismiss the appeal. The attorneys for one of the lessors objected to thej dismissal for the reason that they had contracted for a fee contingent upon the cancellation of the leases in controversy and the' settlqlnent was made without their consent.

It appears from the motion that the lessor for whom these attorneys appeared recognized the validity of the judgment of the lower court by accepting the royalties and rentals payable under the leases. This operates as a waiver to prosecute ejrror to reverse that judgment. Lohr & Trapnell v. Johns-Manville Co., 64 Okla. 79, 166 Pac. 124; City of Lawton v. Ayres, 40 Okla. 524, 139 Pac. 963.

The attorneys cannot be heard to object to a dismissal of the appeal for the sole reason that they had a contract with one of the defendants below for a contingent fee. Section 249, Rev. Laws 1910:

“Should the party to any action or proposed action, whose interest is adverse to the client contracting with an attorney, settle or compromise the cause of action or claim wherein is involved any lien as mentioned in the preceding sections hereof, without a satisfaction of the attorney’s claim, such adverse party shall thereupon become liable to such attorney for thej fee due him or to become due him under his contract of employment, to the extent of reasonable compensation for all services pe^formerl by him in connection with said action or contemplated suit.”

■ The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except TURNER and BRÉTT, JJ., not participating.

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

OWEN, J.

This action was brought • by defendants in error, in the district court of Carter county, to enjoin plaintiffs in error -from- interfering with the possession of certain "described premises held under oil and gas leases. The controversy was between the different lessees. of th^ owners of the land. After the appeal was filed in this court, the lessees compromised thej controver. sy and joined in a motion to dismiss the appeal. The attorneys for one of the lessors objected to thej dismissal for the reason that they had contracted for a fee contingent upon the cancellation of the leases in controversy and the' settlqlnent was made without their consent.

It appears from the motion that the lessor for whom these attorneys appeared recognized the validity of the judgment of the lower court by accepting the royalties and rentals payable under the leases. This operates as a waiver to prosecute ejrror to reverse that judgment. Lohr & Trapnell v. Johns-Manville Co., 64 Okla. 79, 166 Pac. 124; City of Lawton v. Ayres, 40 Okla. 524, 139 Pac. 963.

The attorneys cannot be heard to object to a dismissal of the appeal for the sole reason that they had a contract with one of the defendants below for a contingent fee. Section 249, Rev. Laws 1910:

“Should the party to any action or proposed action, whose interest is adverse to the client contracting with an attorney, settle or compromise the cause of action or claim wherein is involved any lien as mentioned in the preceding sections hereof, without a satisfaction of the attorney’s claim, such adverse party shall thereupon become liable to such attorney for thej fee due him or to become due him under his contract of employment, to the extent of reasonable compensation for all services pe^formerl by him in connection with said action or contemplated suit.”

■ The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except TURNER and BRÉTT, JJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 643, 176 P. 241, 71 Okla. 171, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-johnson-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack