
    Sprague v. Horton.
    
      (City Court of New York,
    
    
      General Term.
    
    March 10, 1892.)
    Attorney and Client—Order to Pay Over Money.
    Where an attorney has agreed to prosecute a claim for a given percentage “of the sum recovered, ” he may, when there is no dispute as to the facts, he required to pay over to his client the proper amount by an order of the court on whose judgment the money has been made.
    Appeal from special term.
    Application by Henry L. Sprague for an order requiring Dudley R. Horton to pay over certain moneys collected as his attorney. The order was made, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck and Fitzsimons, JJ.
    
      O. E. Damson, for appellant. E. J. Tinsdale, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

By the contract of employment, Horton, as an attorney, was to collect the claim against Fries, for 25 per cent, of the sum recovered. Under this contract, Horton collected $175, and 75 per cent, of it, to-wit, $131.25, should have been paid over to Sprague. There was no dispute as to the facts, and the court below properly ordered Horton to pay over this amount, with interest. The money was collected on a judgment of this court, and Horton was properly required by this court to pay it Over. In re Fincke, 6 Daly, 111; Foster v. Townshend, 2 Abb. N. C. 29. There being no dispute as to the amount due, it would have been idle to order a reference. The order made does not abridge the right of the attorney. It merely enforces his obligations to the client and duty to the court. It was not an attempt to discipline the attorney, but to prevent abuse of the process of the court, by means of which the money was collected. We find no error, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  