
    James Getchell versus George Clark.
    
      Practice. Where referees have reported in favor of the plaintiff, and before judgment the parties adjust the action, and the plaintiff discharges the defendant, the plaintiff’s counsel has no lien on the cause for his fee; nor, if after judgment, has he any remedy hut by action against his client.
    The parties had, at a former term, submitted this action to referees under a rule of this Court. The referees had heard the parties, and had agreed on a report in favor of the plaintiff for [ * 310 ] damages and costs, which * report was made at the last term of this Court. After the report had been made, the parties settled the action, and the plaintiff gave the defendant a receipt in full of all demands.
    At the last term, the counsel for the plaintiff, who admitted the settlement and discharge, moved that the report might be accepted, and judgment be entered on it to secure to himself the fees due from his client.
   The cause stood over to this term; and now the Court refused his motion, declaring that before judgment, it was very clear that the plaintiff might settle the action, and discharge the defendant, without or against the consent of his attorney, who had no lien on the cause for his fees; that after judgment, if the plaintiff released the judgment to the defendant, the law had provided no remedy for him, but an action for his fees against his client. Both parties were called .

Rice, for the plaintiff.

Mellen, for the- defendant. 
      
      
         Qutere whether the attorney has not in such a case a lien for his fees? (Dawson Att. 144. — Omerod vs. Gate, 1 East. 404. — Ex parte Bryant, 2 Rose, 237. — 1 Mad. 49. — Dunklee vs. Clark, 13 Mass. 525. — Baker vs. Cook, 11 Mass. 238. and note to 2d Ed. — Maugham, 312.), and whether, in case of a collusive settlement, the defendant is not liable to the attorney of the plaintiff for the amount for which the attorney has a lien ? (Merifield, 240. — Maugham, 310 — 312.)
     