Whittaker v. Clarke

Citations

• 33 Tex. 647

Syllabus

<p>1. A defendant in a suit upon a money demand is in no way responsible to tbe plaintiff’s attorney for his fees, and may adjust tbe demand with the plaintiff himself, pending the suit, regardless of .the attorney’s fees and of the lien which the attorney was entitled to upon his client's papers and money’when in his possession.</p> <p>2. In a suit on a due hill, the defendant pleaded that since the institution of the suit he had fully paid the plaintiff the debt sued on, and he filed the plaintiff’s receipt as part of the plea. The plaintiff’s attorney filed a plea of intervention, asserting that he had a lien on the debt for his fees; that the debt had been settled by the plaintiff and defendant without his knowledge or consent, and in fraud of his rights; and that he was entitled to judgment against the defendant for hi^fers at the customary rate of ten per cent, upon the amount of the demand. The defendant demurred to the plea of intervention. Held, that the demurrer should have been sustained. The defendant was not liable to the plaintiff’s attorney, nor chargeable with fraud against him in consequence of making payment to his client, the plaintiff. (Able v. Lee, 6 Texas, 427, and Casey v. March, 30 Texas, 180, cited.)</p> <p>3. It was palpable error for the court below to direct the jury “ to find the following verdict,” dictating or indicating the verdict returned.</p>