
    DIVER v. AMERICAN ICE CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 12, 1911.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 155)—Right op Review—Entry op Order by Appellant.
    Where the order substituting a new attorney for plaintiff recited that it was entered upon his motion, and no objection appeared to have been made to that part of it giving the former attorney a lien for his services on any settlement or recovery, the plaintiff cannot appeal from the order.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 970; Dec. Dig. § 155.]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
    Action by John Diver against the American Ice Company. From that part of an order substituting a new attorney for plaintiff, which gave the former attorney a lien for his services, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and GERARD, JJ. Eugene I. Yuells, for appellant.
    Harold S. Fleischer, respondent in pro. per.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   GERARD, J.

This order recites that it is entered on motion of the payty now appealing. For all that appears here, no objection may have been made before the learned justice below to the amount of the percentage fixed by him. A .party cannot appeal from an order entered in his favor and on his motion. Hooper v. Beecher, 109 N. Y. 609, 15 N. E. 742. If plaintiff raised the question as to the percentage fixed, that fact should appear in the order, and by a resettlement of the order that can be made to appear.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.  