
    (29 Misc. Rep. 681.)
    BURPEE v. TOWNSEND.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
    December, 1899.)
    Attorney’s Lien.
    Where the parties to an action for damages settle by plaintiff simply withdrawing his action, nothing being paid in settlement, his attorney is not entitled to prosecute the action in aid of his lien.
    Action by Edward B. Burpee against Gerard B. Townsend. Settled by the parties, nothing being paid in settlement. Motion by the attorney for the plaintiff for leave to prosecute the action in aid of his lien for costs. Motion denied.
    Edward W. Brenen, for the motion.
    Clarence J. Shearn, opposed.
   GAYHOR, 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 attorney’s 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.  