
    Anna M. Conklin, Plaintiff, v. Horace E. Conklin, Respondent. In the Matter of the Application of Hinman, Howard & Kattell, Attorneys, Appellants.
    
      Attorney and client — action by wife for divorce — attorneys discharged by return of wife to husband before judgment — no lien for services.
    
    
      Conklin v. Conklin, 201 App. Div. 170, affirmed.
    (Argued October 3, 1922;
    decided October 19, 1922.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 18, 1922, which reversed an order of Special Term determining that appellants herein had a lien for services and disbursements as attorneys for plaintiff in her action for absolute divorce and appointing a referee to determine the amount thereof and dismissed the proceeding. Before the action had proceeded to judgment the plaintiff voluntarily returned to her husband, the defendant, and both parties have since been living together as husband and wife. The Appellate Division held that the appellants were discharged by the act of their client and the performance of future services in this action was rendered impossible by the settlement. Therefore, an allowance of counsel fees' could never be made; that nothing exists to which an attorney’s lien may attach, and that the appellants are in this action wholly remediless.
    
      Harvey D. Hinman for appellants.
    
      F. J. Mangan for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  