TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. Dickerman

Arthur Jones and Joseph H. Clark v. Albert Dickerman, Circuit Judge of Muskegon County

Jones v. Dickerman, 54 N.W. 876 (Mich. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 7, 1893
Citations
54 N.W. 87695 Mich. 289
Headnotes
Attorney and client — Lien for services — Substitution. 1. The lien of attorneys for services rendered in a pending suit is lost by their recovery of a judgment for such services against their client. 3. The attorneys of record cannot complain of an order of substitution which expressly preserves any lien they may have for services rendered.
Summary
Mandamus. Delators, who were attorneys of record for one Bane, the defendant in an action of ejectment, recovered judgment against him for their services in such suit, together with other claims, and obtained a portion of tbe amount thereof, by garnishment proceedings. Subsequently Bane applied to respondent for and obtained an order substituting other attorneys in the place and stead of relators in such ejectment suit, which order provided that the substitution should be without prejudice to relators as to any right, claim, or lien they might have upon papers in their hands pertaining to said suit, or upon any judgment which might be rendered. Belators apply for a mandamus to compel respondent to vacate such order.

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.

Per Curiam.

The writ is denied, with costs, the lien being lost by judgment; and, further, the order of substi.tution complained of expressly provided for the preservation of any lien that might exist.

How later courts describe this case

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

1910: 11912: 11968: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wipfler v. Warren128 N.W. 178 (Mich. 1910)
  2. Lanagan v. Wayne Circuit Judge136 N.W. 398 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Kysor Industrial Corp. v. D. M. Liquidating Co.161 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)

Most recent

  1. Kysor Industrial Corp. v. D. M. Liquidating Co.161 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. Lanagan v. Wayne Circuit Judge136 N.W. 398 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Wipfler v. Warren128 N.W. 178 (Mich. 1910)

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