18 Utah 87 | Utah | 1898
This case, of the Victor Gold and Silver Mining Co. against the National Bank of the Republic, was originally tried in 1895, and judgment entered in favor of the defendant.
It appears that on appealing the case the plaintiff was unable to bear the expenses, and that its attorneys furnished the money necessary to take the appeal. The appellate court reversed the case, remanded it for a new trial, and adjudged that the appellant should recover its costs to be taxed and have execution therefor. The costs
The respondent insists that the decision appealed from was not a final judgment, and therefore not appealable. We do not think this position is well taken. The judgment for costs was entered in pursuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court. The motion was made to offset these costs and satisfy that judgment. A hearing was had thereon at which affidavits were presented, and other evidence introduced, all parties being present, and the cause regularly submitted to, and finally decided by the court. That decision, as to those costs, and the rights of the plaintiff in the original action and his attorneys, was a final judgment, preventing either of the parties from ever recovering them in any way. The order was made in a
It appears that on the 8th of April, 1898, the court filed a finding of facts, and the respondent maintains that it was an additional, finding, made at the request of the defeated party, subsequent to the decision, and that therefore this court on appeal can consider neither the additional finding nor the evidence on which it was based. This court cannot disregard a finding of facts simply because it was filed subsequent to the rendering of the decision of the court.
Secs. 3168 and 3169, R. S., as to the time and order of filing the finding of facts and entry of judgment are directory merely and not mandatory. 5 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 939; Broad v. Murray, 44 Cal. 228.
Under the statute, however, an express finding of facts is necessary, and, where it contains mere general conclusions instead of facts involved in the issues, and affords no information as to the particular facts considered by the court as established, the court has power after filing the same to correct, amend, or modify the finding, so as to give true expression to the decision of the court, as to the rights of the parties. Bixby v. Bent, 59 Cal. 522. Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Id. 375.
In this case it does not appear that any express finding of facts was filed prior to the filing of the one in question. It is true the court previously filed an opinion, but, while an opionion of a court, in deciding a case, setting forth
Under the circumstances shown by the record, we would not be warranted in disregarding the finding in question. It must be considered not as an additional finding of facts, but as the one showing the facts involved in the issues.
The appellants insist that the court erred in holding that the attorneys had no lien on the judgment for costs and disbursements and in ordering that the defendant National Bank of the Republic, in the original action, had the right ,to offset other judgments, which had been obtained against the plaintiff, against the judgment for costs. We are of - the opinion that this contention is well founded. As we have seen the judgment for costs was entered pursuant to the mandate of the supreme court and the appellant, in the original case was to have execution for the same. The judgment was made up wholly of costs and disbursements,, and these, their client being unable to do so, had been paid by the attorneys, who, it appears, were confident that the case had been erroneously decided by the trial court against their client, and were successful in
In this case the attorneys were not even required to give notice that they claimed a lien, because the judgment being for costs only, it of itself imparted legal notice of the lien. Such lien rests upon the equity of the claim of an attorney to be reimbursed out of the proceeds of the judgment which he recovered for his client, on account of which the costs have arisen and have entered into the judgment itself. That the lien exists, as to costs and disbursements, is well settled by the weight of authority, and many decisions hold that it exists for compensation for services as well.
In Marshal v. Meech, et al, 51 N. Y. 140, it was said. “Such a lien existed before the Code, and is not affected by any provision of the Code. The lien exists not only to the extent of the costs entered in the judgment, but for any sum which the client agreed his attorney should have
In Currier v. Boston and Maine Railroad, 37 N. H. 223, it was held that an attorney had a lien upon tbe judgment rendered in favor of bis client for the amount of bis fees and disbursements in tbe suit, but that tbe lien extended only to the fees and disbursements of tbe attorney on account of tbe taxable costs.
So, in Stratton v. Hussey, 62 Me. 286, it was observed: “ Tbe attorney need not notify tbe debtor of bis lien. The right of lien is paramount to that of tbe parties to a setoff of mutual demands. It cannot be defeated by a discharge of tbe client. It is of tbe highest equity, and is entitled to tbe fullest protection.”
Mr. Justice Lyon, in Rice v. Garnhart, 35 Wis. 282, said: “It cannot be doubted that tbe attorney has a lien upon tbe judgment which be has received for bis client, for bis services and disbursements in recovering tbe same.”
Tbe lien of an attorney on a judgment for costs also exists in England. 8 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, (2d ed.) 447; 2 Kent. Comm. 641; Story on Agency, Sec. 383; Rooney v. Second Ave. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 368; McDonald v. Napier, 14 Ga. 89; Weed Sewing Machine Co. v.
We expressly refrain from passing upon tbe question whether or not an attorney is entitled to a lien upon a judgment obtained by him for his services in obtaining it, because such question is not involved in this case. It must be admitted that the authorities, especially in this country, on the question of an attorney’s lien at common law on a judgment are not harmonious. The cases cited by respondent from California show that the opposite view prevails in that state, and it appears the trial court followed those decisions. We think, however, that the weight of authority accords with the views herein expressed.
We do not deem it important to discuss any other points presented, as the question of lien is decisive of this case.
The case is reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to set aside its order and decree in the premises. Costs to be awarded the appellants.