{ "id": 1594453, "name": "Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company", "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad", "decision_date": "1919-11-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "587", "last_page": "591", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "140 Ark. 587" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "117 Ark. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" }, { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 Cal. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "49 Iowa 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2327891 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/49/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ind. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1402727 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/42/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark, 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885799 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Kan. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 Ark. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727889 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/12/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N. C. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1955261 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/65/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 N. Y. St. Rep. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y. St. Rep.", "case_ids": [ 2001090 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-st-rep/15/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Conn. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "91 S. W. 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1499056 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/77/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ga 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 1301776 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/49/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Kan. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 8860436 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/kan/55/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ark. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "210 S. W. 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "case_ids": [ 8250771, 8250820 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sw/210/0283-01", "/sw/210/0283-02" ] }, { "cite": "174 N. Y. Supp. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "117 Ark. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1564879 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/117/0504-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 423, "char_count": 8502, "ocr_confidence": 0.509, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.296287805729208e-08, "percentile": 0.27088760773311493 }, "sha256": "10cb8f55b07be77753278bcc61edfd9a7f38879fcdc2d53db6c0e45f87ed1fce", "simhash": "1:a3dfcdad02f4eaea", "word_count": 1474 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:17:16.496432+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCULLOCH, C. J.\nMrs. Katherine King, as administratrix of tke estate of ker deceased husband through ker attorney, Jo'Johnson, instituted an action in tke Independence Circuit Court against tke Missouri Pacific Railroad Company to recover damages alleged to have accrued to tke estate and next of kin by reason of tke negligence of tke railroad in tke killing of James E. King.\nAfter tke filing of tke complaint tke Director General of Railroads required that suits be commenced in tke \u2022county where tke person injured by tke railroad company resided or in tke county where tke accident occurred,\nAfter this rule was adopted, the administratrix, through her attorney, Jo Johnson, instituted suit against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company on the same cause of action in Baxter County, but the suit first instituted in Independence County was not dismissed upon the bringing of the second suit.\nAfterwards the plaintiff, Mrs. King, compromised and settled the case with the railroad company and dismissed the suit pending in the circuit court of Baxter County against the railroad company.\nFollowing the order dismissing the cause in the Baxter Circuit Court, the plaintiff also dismissed the case, involving the same cause of action, that was pending in the Independence Circuit Court at a special term of that court, November 25, 1918. At the December term of the Independence Circuit Court, Jo Johnson filed a motion to set aside the order of dismissal and asking that the cause be redocketed and also filed his petition asking that he be allowed to intervene, setting up in substance that he had a contract 'with the plaintiff for a fee, as her attorney, in the sum of $3,976.50, and that under his contract he was entitled to a judgment against the railroad company for the sum of $3,976.50, for which he prayed.\nAs grounds for his motion to reinstate the cause in the Independence Circuit Court, Jo Johnson, among other things, alleged that, after the dismissal of the case that was pending in the Baxter Circuit Court, he made inquiry of the clerk of the Independence Circuit Court as to the time the court would convene, and the clerk replied by letter: \u201cThere won\u2019t be any court before the term beginning the 30th day of December and these cases will be set for trial on Wednesday of the first week.\u201d That after receiving this information he (Johnson) relied upon the same and was misled thereby and without any fault on his part was thus prevented from appearing in the Independence Circuit Court on the day the cause was dismissed.\nThe petition of the intervener, Jo Johnson, was resisted by the appellee, and the court entered the following judgment:\n\u201cOn this January 1, 1919, comes the intervener in person and the defendant by its attorney, Troy Pace, and intervener\u2019s motion to set aside dismissal and reinstate case and hear intervener\u2019s petition for fee comes on to be heard.\n\u201cIt is agreed by counsel that during the pendency of this cause here this same plaintiff by her same attorney commenced her suit in the Baxter Circuit Court on her same cause of action, as here, and thereafter the plaintiff dismissed that said suit without the approval of her said attorney, said intervener here, and still later this same plaintiff in the same Baxter Circuit Court again filed her same suit against this defendant and settled same with defendant through other attorneys.\n\u201cTherefore, this court is of the opinion that no jurisdiction remains or could remain here to consider intervener\u2019s petition for fee as against defendant, and this court passes on no other question raised in intervener\u2019s said motion to set aside dismissal and reinstate case.\u201d\nThe court was correct in holding that the Independence Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to reinstate the cause for the purpose of adjudicating appellant\u2019s claim for a fee and enforcing judgment for the same.\nAct 293 of the Acts of 1909, page 892, providing a lien for attorney\u2019s fees upon his client\u2019s cause of action, contemplates that the fee shall be determined and the lien therefor enforced in the court in which the original action was disposed of 'by settlement, compromise or verdict. Section 2 of that act gives the court \u201cin which said action may be pending at the time of settlement, compromise, or verdict,\u201d the jurisdiction to determine and enforce the lien.\nIn St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Blaylock, 117 Ark. 504-14, we said: \u201cA client may dismiss his cause of action or may settle with the opposite party without consulting his attorney, but where there are any proceeds resulting from the litigation, either through settlement or compromise, or as the final result of the prosecution of the lawsuit to the end, the attorney has a lien on such proceeds of which he can not he deprived by the parties to the lawsuit by any settlement they may make. \u2019 \u2019\nWhere an attorney seeks to have declared and enforce his lien for a fee in the same suit, which he instituted for his client and not in an independent action, it is the purpose of the statute to enable an attorney who has a lien upon his client\u2019s cause of action to follow any settlement, compromise or verdict in the court where the result of such settlement, compromise or verdict is recorded and the case finally disposed of and have his claim for a lien there determined and enforced.\nIt appears, under the facts recited in the judgment to which appellant agreed, that' the cause of action upon which he claims a lien was finally settled on its merits in the Baxter Circuit Court. Appellant should have resorted to that court and no other and have his claim of lien adjudicated and enforced.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Independence County overruling appellant\u2019s motion to redocket the cause of Katherine King, Administrator, v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. is correct.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCULLOCH, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Allyn Smith and Jo Johnson, for appellant.", "Troy Pace, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.\nOpinion delivered November 24, 1919.\n1. Attorney\u2019s fees \u2014 lien\u2014when enforceable. \u2014 Act 293, page 892, of 1909, providing for a lien for attorney\u2019s fees upon his client\u2019s cause of action, contemplates that the fee shall be determined, and lien therefor enforced, in the court in which the original action was disposed of by settlement, compromise and verdict. The court in which said action may be pending at the time of settlement, compromise or verdict, has the jurisdiction to determine and enforce the lien.\n2. Same \u2014 same\u2014same.\u2014Under act 293 of 1909, an attorney who has a lien upon his client\u2019s cause of action, must follow any settlement, compromise or verdict in the court where the result of such settlement, compromise or verdict, is recorded, and the case finally disposed of, and have his claim for a lien there determined and enforced.\nAppeal from Independence Circuit Court; Dene E. Colemam, Judge;\naffirmed.\nAllyn Smith and Jo Johnson, for appellant.\nThe Independence Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear intervener\u2019s petition. The order of the Director General was void under the act of Congress. 174 N. Y. Supp. 60; 210 S. W. 283; Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 463. See also 5 Ark. 429; 27 Id. 315; 55 Kan. 331; 49 Ga 375; 77 Ark. 148; 91 S. W. 8; Kirby & Castle\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7538; 18 Conn. 71; 29 Id. 515; 15 N. Y. St. Rep. 598; 65 N. C. 478; 69 Id. 189; 12 Ark. 369; 41 Kan. 152; 2 Tenn. Ck. 141; 27 Ark, 315; 5 Id. 427; 42 Ind. 395; 17 Id. 354; 49 Iowa 183; 14 Cal. 139. When appellant commenced tke action in tke Independence court kis lien attacked, and it was beyond tke power of plaintiff to dismiss ker suit so as to prevent ker attorney from enforcing kis contract for a fee.\nTroy Pace, for appellee.\nTke Independence Court did not exceed its judicial discretion in denying' appellant\u2019s motion to reinstate tke causes formerly dismissed. Tke exhibits to the motion can not be considered, as they are not preserved in tke bill of exceptions. 53 Ark. 479; 37 Id. 543; 34 Id. 554. There is absolutely no showing that tke court abused its discretion in denying tke motion. 117 Ark. 514.\nAct 293, Acts 1909, page 892, provides that tke enforcement of a lien by an attorney can be had and enforced only in the court where tke action was pending that was settled. If in any other forum, it must be by independent suit. Sec. 2, Acts 1909, p. 892. After appellant was discharged as attorney, he had no right to continue tke suit, and tke judgment below is right. 117 Ark. 514; 128 Id. 471. Tke judgment in tke Baxter Circuit Court is res judicata. 29 Ark.' (80; 84 Id. 203. See also 1 R. C. L., sec. 24; 1 Cyc., \u00a7 275." }, "file_name": "0587-01", "first_page_order": 613, "last_page_order": 617 }