{
  "id": 1362327,
  "name": "Vaughan v. Humphreys",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaughan v. Humphreys",
  "decision_date": "1922-04-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 Ark. 140"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "111 Ark. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1540406
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/111/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ark. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1521533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/86/0115-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 4792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1003365993971376e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5681728934775734
    },
    "sha256": "7611457d1dc7777842163597b5d0b6dfd8d1f60f5f12e6ffffd704a313200a98",
    "simhash": "1:7e4d7572d01c721d",
    "word_count": 819
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:20.767094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Vaughan v. Humphreys."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.\nThis appeal involves the construction of a contract for compensation between an attorney and his Client.\nAppellant entered into a contract in writing with appellees to bring suit on a life insurance policy in the sum of $5,000, and the clause of the contract providing for the compensation of the attorney is as follows:\n\u201cThe parties of the second part (appellees) hereby agree to pay the parties of the first part (appellant) as compensation for legal services, in the event they recover of the Kansas City Life Insurance Company for' said policy, the sum of forty per. cent, of recovery, the said parties of the first part accepting a fee contingent upon recovery, and agree to payor advance all.costs of the suit that may become necessary- to be paid, and the parties of the first part agree that no liability shall attach either to the guardian or to Maggie Kidout on any account whatever.\u201d\nSuit was brought against the insurance company, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellees in the sum of $5,000 and the accrued interest. The attorney\u2019s fees were fixed by the court at $500. The circuit court allowed the attorney forty per cent, of the whole amount recovered by the plaintiffs in the suit against the insurance company. This included the face of the policy, interest, and the penalty and attorney\u2019s fees allowed under the statute.\nIt was the contention of the attorney that he was entitled to the whole of the attorney\u2019s fees allowed in the suit against the insurance company and forty per cent, of the other items. The attorney had collected the judgment against the insurance company and had retained the amount to which he deemed he was entitled under the contract.\nFrom the judgment rendered against him in favor of appellees, appellant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nOur statute provides that, upon the failure of the insurance company to pay the loss after demand made, such company shall be liable to pay to. the holder of the policy, in addition to the amount of loss, twelve per cent, damages, together with all reasonable attorney\u2019s fees for the prosecution and collection of said loss.\nThe attorney\u2019s fee is a penalty given to reimburse the policy-holder for expenses incurred in enforcing the contract of indebtedness, and is taxed as costs in the case. Arkansas Ins. Co. v. McManus, 86 Ark. 115, and Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 111 Ark. 554. Hence the attorney\u2019s, fee is part of the recovery of the policy-holder against the insurance company.\nThe legal meaning of \u201crecovery\u201d is the obtaining of a thing by the judgment of a court, as the result of an action brought for that purpose. The contract under consideration provides that the attorney shall have \u201cforty, per cent, of recovery.\u201d This means forty per cent, of the amount recovered by the policy-holder, which, as we have seen, includes the amount of the attorney\u2019s fee allowed by the statute to the policy-holder. Under the statute, this is a much a part of the recovery of the policy holder as is the face of the policy and the penalty provided by the statute.\nAs between an attorney and his client, as well as between the client and third persons, a judgment for costs, whether the costs consist of those items taxable as of course or of an extra allowance as well, belongs to the client. McIlvane v. Steinson, 85 N. Y. Sup. 889.\nIt follows that the judgment must be affirmed.-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brundidge & Neelly and Emmet Vaughan, for appellant.",
      "Mann & Mann, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Vaughan v. Humphreys.\nOpinion delivered April 10, 1922.\n1. Insurance \u2014 attorney\u2019s pee as part op recovery. \u2014 The attorney\u2019s fee, which the statute permits to be recovered from an insurance company upon its failure to pay the loss after demand made, is a penalty given to reimburse the policy holder for expenses incurred in enforcing the contract of indebtedness, and is taxed as costs in the case, -and therefore is part of the recovery against the insurance company.\n2. Attorney and client \u2014 percentage op recovery. \u2014 Where an attorney\u2019s contract, gave him certain percentage of the recovery in a certain action against an insurance company, and the client recovered from the company, in addition to the amount of the policy, a sum for an attorney\u2019s fee, the attorney is entitled, not to the entire fee so recovered, but only to the stated percentage of the attorney\u2019s fee in. addition .to his percentage on the balance of the recovery.\n3. Attorney and client \u2014 right to costs and extra allowance.\u2014 As between an attorney and his client, as well as between the client and third persons, a judgment of costs, whether consisting only of those items taxable as of course, or of an extra allowance as well, belongs to the client.\nAppeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; George W. Clarice, Judge;\naffirmed.\nBrundidge & Neelly and Emmet Vaughan, for appellant.\nMann & Mann, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 170
}