TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Getchell v. Clark

James Getchell versus George Clark

Getchell v. Clark, 5 Mass. 309 (1809)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1809
Citations
5 Mass. 309
Cited by 15
Headnotes
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.
Summary
The parties had, at a former term, submitted this action to referees under a rule of this Court. The referees had heard the parties, and had agreed on a report in favor of the plaintiff for [ * 310 ] damages and costs, which * report was made at the last term of this Court. After the report had been made, the parties settled the action, and the plaintiff gave the defendant a receipt in full of all demands.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The 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 *239 the 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.

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.)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1814–1815: 11824–1825: 11852–1853: 11854–1855: 11866–1867: 11868–1869: 21870–1871: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11898–1899: 11908–1909: 11912–1913: 11932–1933: 11962–1963: 118142026peak 1868 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stewart v. Flowers44 Miss. 513 (1870)
  2. Horton v. Champlin12 R.I. 550 (1880) · Concurrence
  3. Tyler v. the Superior Court73 A. 467 (R.I. 1909)
  4. Henchey v. City of Chicago41 Ill. 136 (1866)
  5. Herbits v. Constitution Indemnity Co. of Philadelphia181 N.E. 723 (Mass. 1932)
  6. Elbaum v. Sullivan183 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1962)

Most recent

  1. Elbaum v. Sullivan183 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1962)
  2. Herbits v. Constitution Indemnity Co. of Philadelphia181 N.E. 723 (Mass. 1932)
  3. Blake v. Corcoran97 N.E. 1002 (Mass. 1912)
  4. Tyler v. the Superior Court73 A. 467 (R.I. 1909)
  5. Sandberg v. Victor Gold & Silver Mining Co.55 P. 74 (Utah 1898)
  6. Compton v. State38 Ark. 601 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list