Mansfield v. Dorland
HENRY A. MANSFIELD and CHARLES T. MANSFIELD v. THOMAS DORLAND
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeheeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydeheeldt
Heydeheeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, with which Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court, setting aside the satisfaction of a judgment. In ex parte Kyle, 1 Cal. Rep. 331, this Court decided that an attorney has no lien upon a judgment recovered in favour of his client, as a compensation for his services. To this decision we give our approval; and where the plaintiff enters satisfaction of a judgment, the attorneys have no right to disturb it.
In the case presented by this record, there was no assignment of the judgment, and it is therefore unnecessary to 'consider what^would be the effect of an assignment.
Let the order of the Court below be reversed, and the motion there dismissed with costs.
Cites, in this corpus
- Ex parte Kyle · 1850-12-15
Cited by
- Rosenberg v. Lawrence S. F. 15901 · 1938-02-02
- Sisk v. California Natiional Bank L. A. No. 14360 · 1934-10-22
- McGown v. Dalzell Docket No. 5161. · 1925-04-07
- Gage v. Atwater L.A. No. 1009. · 1902-03-28
- Hogan v. Black No. 7,870 · 1884-10-28