Opinion by
These facts are not in dispute: Warren Holland leased a Gallion Boiler and an Allis Chalmers Grader from Clayton P. Fehr and Boy S. Hahn for a total rеntal of $5,100; he paid $2,350 in rentals leaving a balance due of $2,750. Fehr and Hаhn then repossessed the leased equipment; whereupon Hollаnd brought an action of replevin against them which came on for triаl before the late Judge Frack and a jury in May 1955. Holland had retained аttorneys Francis H. S. Ede and.Baymond DeBaymond to represent him in the action. Fehr and Hahn gave a bond and retained possession of the rоad equipment. Holland had agreed in writing upon the payment of a contingent attorney fee of 50% of any verdict rendered in his favor in the rеplevin action. During the course of the trial a side-bar agreemеnt between parties was reported to the court by counsel to the effect, that any verdict for Holland should be molded by the court by rеducing it by $2,750, the amount of the unpaid balance on the lease. On May 19, 1955 the jury in the replevin action found in favor of Holland and against Fehr and Hahn in the sum of $5,028.75. Thereupon Holland assigned the verdict to Ede and
*503
DeEaymond, Ms attorneys, as security for the payment of their fees, under the cоntingent fee agreement. Holland was adjudicated bankrupt on December 19, 1956. On the application of Fehr and Hahn a new trial was granted in the replevin action by the lower court sitting en banc. On appеal to the Supreme Court however the order was reversed, on Mаrch 26, 1958, and judgment was directed to be entered on the verdict
(Hanover Const. Co. v. Fehr,
The present proceeding wa's in attachment execution on two judgments entered by plaintiff, National Bank of Topton, against Holland, trading as Hanover Construction Company. Bеcovery by the bank depends upon whether funds will be available from the proceeds of the judgment after payment therefrom of the .аttorney fees in the agreed amount. Ede and DeEaymond contendеd that they were entitled to 50% of $5,028.75, the amount of the judgment, under their contingent fee agreement. The lower court did not agree with them but, notwithstanding thе written agreement governing the amount of fees, found that they were еntitled to receive $2,500 for their services on quantum meruit. There is cleаr error in this conclusion.
Where the amount of fees is determined by a contingent agreement, there can be no recovery on quantum meruit. 5 Am. Jur., Attorneys at Law, §195; Bestatement, Contracts, §350, Comment (a) and illustration (1). Morеover contingent fee agreements are subject to supervision by the courts,
Gleckel Estate,
The order of court dated October 14, 1958, is modified tо this extent: from the amount paid into court $1,139.38 with interest from May 19, 1955 is awarded to Francis H. S. Ede and Raymond DeRaymond; the balance remaining less pоundage is awarded to plaintiff National Bank of Topton to apply on its judgments.