{ "id": 8631837, "name": "Z. V. CRUTCHFIELD v. JONES FOSTER", "name_abbreviation": "Crutchfield v. Foster", "decision_date": "1938-12-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "551", "last_page": "553", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 N.C. 551" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "109 S. E., 378", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S. E., 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. E., 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 785", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625736, 8625714 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0785-02", "/nc/204/0785-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N. C., 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698512 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/72/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N. C., 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683323 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652391 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Tenn., 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8538255 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/94/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N. C., 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 U. S., 530", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3625770 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/184/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 S. E., 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655048 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S. E., 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N. C., 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596032 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S. E., 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0371-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 435, "char_count": 7613, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.2085472642727205e-08, "percentile": 0.26809825592148423 }, "sha256": "f0a406bb202c1651743c560546a69c43b858d87c2d2cb09b4607b6bc337122d1", "simhash": "1:06b940058112f772", "word_count": 1360 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Z. V. CRUTCHFIELD v. JONES FOSTER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Baenhill, J.\nThe defendant alleges and contends that the judgment pleaded by him under which his land was sold by the sheriff and purchased by the plaintiff is an attempt to impose a lien on his property for the security of an attorney\u2019s fee and is a nullity. No issues were submitted to a jury. The cause was apparently disposed of by the court below as upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, which admits the matters set up in defense, but challenges the sufficiency thereof to bar plaintiff\u2019s recovery. Barnes v. Trust Co., 194 N. C., 371, 139 S. E., 689; Pridgen v. Pridgen, 190 N. C., 102, 129 S. E., 419; Churchwell v. Trust Co., 181 N. C., 21, 105 S. E., 889; Oldham v. Ross, post, 696.\nThe common law rule, which applies in this State, is stated in 2 R. C. L., page 1077, as follows: \u201cThe weight of authority is to the effect that, in the absence of statute, the charging lien of an attorney for compensation for professional services does not attach to the land involved in the .litigation in which such services were rendered. This rule applies in eases where the attorney has successfully prosecuted a suit in equity to establish title to land; where he has recovered land in an action of ejectment ; and where he has successfully defended the right and title to land against an unjust claim or an unwarranted attempt to subject it to an alleged lien or liability.\u201d In Midgett v. Vann, 158 N. C., 130, the Court says that: \u201cCounsel fees in favor of the successful party were abolished by statute in 1871. In many states attorneys\u2019 fees are allowed tbe successful litigant, but it is not so in tbis State and in some others, nor in tbe Federal Court. R. R. v. Elliott, 184 U. S., 530; Hyman v. Devereux, 65 N. C., 589; Stringfield v. Hirsh, 94 Tenn., 425. Tbe opinion in tbis latter case is an elaborate discussion of tbe subject and gives tbe states where attorneys\u2019 fees are recoverable and those where they are not, placing North Carolina in tbe last-named list. See Donlan v. Trust Co., 139 N. C., 212.\u201d In Mordecai v. Devereux, 74 N. C., 673, it is said: \u201cTbe question is decided. Patterson v. Miller, 72 N. C., 516. Tbis Court has never interfered between attorney and client in making allowances for professional services, and we are not inclined at tbis late day to assume tbe power to do so.\u201d Ellington v. Ellington, 204 N. C., 785, 168 S. E., 672; Roe v. Journigan, 181 N. C., 180, 106 S. E., 680.\nIn bolding that tbe court is without authority to impose a lien upon lands to secure an attorney\u2019s fee allowed by tbe court, we are not inadvertent to tbe decision in Casket Co. v. Wheeler, 182 N. C., 459, 109 S. E., 378, where it appeared that there bad been an equitable assignment of a part of tbe recovery to tbe attorney and where it further appeared that a petition in tbe cause was filed by tbe attorney and tbe client was given a full opportunity to be beard. In tbe case under consideration it does not appear that there was any agreement between attorney and client, or that tbe attorney intervened in tbe cause, giving bis client an opportunity to be beard on tbe attorney\u2019s claim. Apparently tbe court fixed tbe fee and imposed a lien without notice.\nEven if it be conceded that tbe court bad power to impose a lien upon tbe land of tbe defendant in favor of bis attorney, as tbe pleaded judgment attempts to do, plaintiff\u2019s deed is a nullity. Tbe judgment provides that \u201cif said Jones Foster fails to pay said lien within 60 days tbe said property shall be advertised and sold as provided by law for tbe foreclosure of other liens.\u201d Under tbis judgment there was no authority in tbe clerk to issue execution thereon, or in tbe sheriff to sell said property under execution. Furthermore, tbe judgment undertakes to impose a lien only upon one lot 55 feet by 200 feet. In addition thereto tbe sheriff undertook to sell another tract containing 1% acres.\nTbe judgment set out in tbe defendant\u2019s further answer is void in so far as it undertakes to fix tbe fee of counsel for tbe defendant in that cause and to impose tbe same as a lien upon defendant\u2019s property, and tbe plaintiff\u2019s deed executed to him by tbe sheriff pursuant to a sale under an execution issued on said judgment conveys no title to tbe land therein described.\nTbe judgment below is\nEeversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Baenhill, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Douglas C. Crutchfield and L. Roy Hughes for plaintiff, appellee.", "McCrary & DeLapp for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Z. V. CRUTCHFIELD v. JONES FOSTER.\n(Filed 14 December, 1938.)\n1. Attorney and Client \u00a7 10 \u2014 Ordinarily, court may not fix amount of attorney\u2019s fee or impose same as a lien upon the client\u2019s land.\nThe court is without power to impose a lien on the land to secure an attorney\u2019s fee allowed by the court in the action involving title to the land, in the absence of agreement between the attorney and client, or intervention on the part of the attorney giving the client an opportunity to be heard on the attorney\u2019s claim.\n2. Execution \u00a7 5 \u2014 Order for sale-held void, and execution on the order for sale by commissioner held void.\nJudgment was entered in an action involving realty which provided that the attorney responsible for the recovery of the land should have a lien thereon in a stipulated amount, and that if the sum were not paid the property should be advertised and sold as provided by law for foreclosure of other liens. Thereafter, execution in the attorney\u2019s favor was issued on the judgment and the land bought at the execution sale by plaintiff. Held: Plaintiff\u2019s deed is a nullity, since the order imposing the lien in the attorney\u2019s favor was not only void, but the order, even if valid, did not authorize the clerk to issue execution thereon, and it further appearing that the sheriff undertook to sell in addition to the land described in the order another tract of land also.\nAppeal by defendant from Bivens, J., at February Term, 1938, of DavidsoN.\nEeversed.\nThis is an action in common law ejectment instituted by plaintiff to-recover of tbe defendant possession of the two tracts of land described in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that he acquired title thereto under deed dated 19 August, 1935, from- the sheriff of Davidson County pursuant to a sale under execution. The defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged in further defense: \u201cThat the deed under which the plaintiff claims title to the property referred to in the complaint was made to him without authority of law and conveys no legal title to him, for that it appears from the entry on Minute Docket No. 28, pages 494-496, in the action entitled, \u2018Lula Walker v. Jones Poster, Robert DeLapp and Geneva DeLapp/ in the office of the clerk of Superior Court for Davidson County, that the judge made as a part of the judgment an order as follows, \u2018It further appearing to the court that C. T. Kennedy, attorney for J ones Poster in this action, is responsible for the recovery by the said Jones Poster of a tract of land fronting approximately fifty-five (55) feet by two hundred feet depth on Church Street, it being that portion of the property owned by Cordelia Poster, less the part which Lula Walker has a lien on under and by virtue of this judgment, it is ordered that the said C. T. Kennedy have a lien on said property of Jones Poster as sole heir at law of Cordelia Poster to the extent of seventy-five [dollars] ($75.00) and if said Jones Poster fails to pay said lien within 60 days the said property shall be advertised and sold as provided by law for the foreclosure of other liens.\u2019 \u201d\nThe court below signed judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant excepted and appealed.\nDouglas C. Crutchfield and L. Roy Hughes for plaintiff, appellee.\nMcCrary & DeLapp for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0551-01", "first_page_order": 619, "last_page_order": 621 }