
    William F. Bailey, Resp’t, v. Nicholas Murphy, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 11, 1889)
    
    Attorney and client—When settlement does not destroy lien oe ' attorney.
    A settlement of a case made by the parties thereto does not destroy the lien of the attorney where it is made without his knowledge or consent.
    Appeal'from an order made at special term vacating a satisfaction of a judgment and permitting the plaintiff’s attorney to enforce his lien for costs and counsel fee.
    
      Irving Brown, for app’lt; Alonzo Wheeler, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

—The plaintiff recovered a judgment' •against the defendant for $1,000 damages and $132.92 costs in May, 1888. The costs were not paid tó the plaintiff’s attorney, but the plaintiff settled the judgment under circumstances which justify the inference that the settlement was made to enable the defendant to remove the plaintiff as a witness against the defendant upon an indictment pending against him, as the plaintiff at once left the state. The judgment was not cancelled until after the plaintiff had absconded from the state. The amount paid to settle the claim was only $300. The attorney’s bill was the subject of conversation at the settlement, and the defendant stated that the plaintiff promised to pay these costs. The good faith of this pretense is very doubtful, when the case shows that the plaintiff went out of the state at once, and before the plaintiff’ s attorney was informed of the settlement, and under circumstances which indicated fraud and collusion between the parties to the injury of the plaintiff’s attorney.

A settlement does not destroy the lien of the attorney if made without his consent. Custer v. Greenpoint Ferry Co., 5 Civ. Pro. R., 146; affirmed 98 N.Y., 660; Quinlan v. Birge, 43 Hun, 483.

The cases cited, which hold that notice of the lien as to compensation, in addition to the taxable costs, is necessary, all refer to a settlement in good faith.

Here, as has been observed, the settlement was not made in good faith.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.  