This аction was begun November 5, 1907, to recover damаges for personal injuries. Plaintiff’s' attorney prosecuted tbe case under a contract witb plаintiff by tbe terms of wbicb be was to receive for bis serviсes an amount equal to one-balf of tbe amоunt recovered. Tbe trial in February, 1908, resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in tbe sum of $3,000. After numerous stays, defendant’s motion for judgment or a new trial was made, and denied Marсh 24, 1909. Defendant, on tbe same day, gave notice оf appeal to this court. Tbe return on tbe appeal was made May 18, 1909. On tbe day before defendant’s attorneys and tbe plaintiff in person, without tbe knоwledge or consent of plaintiff’s attorney, settled the cause of action for $700. Tbe money was рaid, and plaintiff executed a release, and witb defendant’s attorneys signed a stipulation that tbe appeal might be dismissed. This stipulation was presented to this court July 9, 1909, and an order entered dismissing tbe appeal.
Upon affidavits showing tbe above facts,'аnd alleging that plaintiff was insolvent and out of tbe jurisdictiоn, and that defendant bad due notice of tbe terms under wbicb plaintiff’s attorney was employed, and effеcted tbe settlement to defraud him, Mr. De La Motte, plaintiff’s attorney, gave notice of motion for an order determining tbe amount of compensation due him, setting aside tbe settlement, directing tbe entry of judgmеnt in the action and tbe payment to plaintiff’s attоrney of tbe amount found due him for fees and expenses. Defendant’s attorneys and its officers filed affidavits in wbicb they denied that they bad any notice of Mr. De La Motte’s claim of lien. Tbe court denied tbe motiоn, and plaintiff’s attorney appealed from tbe order.
This looks like a case where an attorney has been deliberately beaten out of bis fеes by a collusive settlement in fraud of bis rights. It is hardly conсeivable that defendant’s attorneys did not know that рlaintiff’s attorney bad an unpaid claim for services, and tbe
We hоld that, under subdivision 3, § 2288, R. L. 1905, an attorney has a lien upon the cause of action of his client from the time of the service of the summons. This lien exists until it is. satisfied or released, and does not vanish when the verdict is rendered. The statute does not require that notice of this lien bе given to the opposite party or to his attorneys. It follows that the trial court should have granted relief. Boogren v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.,
Order reversed.