
    Bradt against Koon. Lawrence against Bradt.
    Aii attorney obtains judgment for costs agailTB^tho' latter has no right to set. off purchased ’' by him against" A. after ment obtained in favor, so as to
    The court will protect the attorney’s lien to the same extent as the rights of an assignee.
    In the first cause, Bradt had recovered in this Court §70. jn sec0nd cause, Lawrence had recovered §53 81 in the Mayor’s Court of the city of ‘Albany, which was assigned to Koon ;• and now, ■ -
    
      J. Koon, moved to set off §53 81, the last judgment against so much of the first, and cited Schermerhorn v. Schermer
      
      horn, (3 Caines’ Rep. 190;) Hall v. Odie, (2 B. & P.28;) Cooper v. Bigelow, (1 Cowen’s Rep. 206;) and Chamberlin v. Day, (3 Cowen’s Rep. 353.)
    Affidavits were read in opposition to the motion, showing that the judgment against Koon was obtained upon a stipulation to pay certain costs in a cause brought by Bradt against Koon, wherein Mr. J. T. B. Van Vechten was attorney for Bradt; and these costs were due and unpaid to Mr. Van Vechten; that this was known to Koon when he took an assignment of Lawrence’s judgment. Upon these facts,
    
      J. T. B. Van Vechten,
    
    submitted that the beneficial interest in the whole judgment was in him, and that Bradt was a mere trustee for his benefit; that his equity was like that of an assignee, whose rights Koon perfectly understood. That an attorney has a lien upon the costs nominally due to his client, but really to the attorney, which lien the Court will protect to the same extent as if the right was acquired by assignment, he cited Martin v. Hawks, (15 John. Rep. 405.) And, on the authority of that case,
   The Court said the motion must be denied.

Motion denied.  