Randolph, Bowen & Co. v. Randolph

Citations

• 34 Tex. 181

Syllabus

<p>1. Process of garnishment being served on an attorney by judgment creditors of the attorney’s client, the attorney answered that he had in his hands $260, collected by him for his client, twenty-six dollars of which were due respondent as collection fees; that tong before the garnishment his client had employed respondent in a certain still pending law suit, at a stipulated fee of $250, which is still unpaid, and for which respondent claims the right to retain the balance of the money in his-hands. Held, that if the attorney had in good faith performed part of the services involved in the lawsuit, and stood ready to perform the remainder, he was entitled, as against any creditor of his client, to treat and hold as a retainer the money in his hands, to a reasonable amount.</p> <p>2. The court cite with approval the rulings respecting attorney’s liens and fees, made in Able v. Lee, 6 Texas, 431; Casey v. March, 30 Texas, 185, and Baird v. Ratcliffe, 10 Texas, 81; but a doubt is strongly intimated of the correctness of the decision in Wambles v. Lindsay (Austin term, 1869), wherein the relation of attorney and client had been dis- ■ solved by act of God, and yet the attorney was allowed to recover more than his quantum meruit.</p>