
    Edward B. Burpee, Plaintiff, v. Gerard B. Townsend, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
    December, 1899.)
    Attorney’s lien — Eight of the parties to settle a pending action notwithstanding such lien.
    A husband has a right to settle an action which he has brought for the alienation of his wife’s affections and, although the defendant has paid nothing in settlement, the court will not thereafter permit the plaintiff’s attorney to continue the action, in aid of his lien for costs.
    Motion by the attorney for the plaintiff for leave to prosecute the action in aid of his lien for costs. His affidavit is that the plaintiff and defendant have settled the action, which is for damages for the alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s wife by the defendant. Nothing was paid in settlement. The plaintiff simply withdrew his action.
    Edward W. Brenen for motion.
    Clarence J. Shearn opposed.
   Gaynób, J.:

The parties had the right to settle the action, and the attorney’s lien was subject to such right. The law encourages such settlements, and does not permit attorneys’ liens to stand in the way of them. It is said in some decisions that where the parties collusively settle the action so as to defraud the attorney, he will, on showing that fact, and that his client is worthless, be permitted to prosecute the action to judgment in order to establish his right against the opposite party under his lien. This is rather fanciful at best; but no such case is here presented. I see no use citing the decisions on the subject. They are a bundle of confusion.

The motion is denied.  