
    Bowen v. Smidt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    November 18, 1892.)
    Monet Withheld bt Attorney—Summary Process to Pay Over.
    An attorney will not, on a summary process, be ordered to pay over money collected for and claimed by his client, if an assignment of the client’s claim to a third person has come indirectly to the attorney’s knowledge.
    Appeal from special term, Mew York county.
    Summary proceedings by Calvin C. Bowen against Allan Lee Smidt, an attorney, for recovery of moneys collected for plaintiff, notices of an assignment of which to a third person have been given by the client and his assignee to another client of the attorney, and have reached the attorney. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien and Barrett, JJ.
    
      James B. Reilly, for appellant. J. D. Hallen, for respondent.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

Although it seems probable that the appellant owes the money in question, yet we do not think that the court should have made the order directing its payment to the respondent, in the face of the notice of the assignment of the claim given by the respondent and the claim made by the assignee. Such assignee seems to have the right to collect this money from the appellant, which he cannot do in a proceeding of this nature, as the relation of attorney and client has never existed between them. The order appealed from must be reversed, and the proceeding dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal. All concur.  