¶1(after stating the facts.) We are of the opinion that the judgment of the chancellor was right. Stephenson was in possession of land which was claimed in an action against him by the widow and heirs of Roman. The plaintiffs recovei’ed, except the widow. As to her, Stephenson had a valid defense, and defeated her claim to the land. It is immaterial that, in order to avail himself of that defense, the ease had to be transferred to the equity docket, or that this dower interest which he had successfully defended was, on his petition, filed in the same action, assigned, and set apart to him. This was, in effect, only a partition of the land between him and the other plaintiffs, and in this state an attorney acquires no lien on land by obtaining a partition thereof. Gibson v. Buckner, 65 Ark. 84.
¶2Stephenson, as before stated, was in possession of all the land at the commencement of the action, and the facts show that he recovered nothing by the litigation, but only succeeded in maintaining his right to a small portion of that which he already held. Under former decisions of this court his attorney held no lien on the land set apart to him. Hershy v. DuVal, 47 Ark. 86; Gibson v. Buckner, 65 Ark. 84.
¶3Judgment affirmed.