Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Mass. 309

Getchell v. Clark

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1809-05-15

<p>Practice. Where referees have reported in favor of the plaintiff, and before judgment the parties adjust the action, and the plaintiff discharges the defendant, the plaintiff’s counsel has no lien on the cause for his fee; nor, if after judgment, has he any remedy hut by action against his client.</p>

Relies on Baker v. Cook · Dunklee v. Locke

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1809-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1962

11 state decisions

3018091810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The cause stood over to this term; and now the Court refused his motion, declaring that before judgment, it was very clear that the plaintiff might settle the action, and discharge the defendant, without or against the consent of his attorney, who had no lien on the cause for his fees; that after judgment, if the plaintiff released *239the judgment to the defendant, the law had provided no remedy for him, but an action for his fees against his client. Both parties were called (a).

Rice, for the plaintiff. Mellen, for the- defendant.

¶2 Qutere whether the attorney has not in such a case a lien for his fees? (Dawson Att. 144. — Omerod vs. Gate, 1 East. 404. — Ex parte Bryant, 2 Rose, 237. — 1 Mad. 49. — Dunklee vs. Clark, 13 Mass. 525. — Baker vs. Cook, 11 Mass. 238. and note to 2d Ed. — Maugham, 312.), and whether, in case of a collusive settlement, the defendant is not liable to the attorney of the plaintiff for the amount for which the attorney has a lien ? (Merifield, 240. — Maugham, 310 — 312.)

/5/mass/309 · .json · Public domain