
    Arthur Jones and Joseph H. Clark v. Albert Dickerman, Circuit Judge of Muskegon County.
    
      Attorney and client — Lien for services — Substitution.
    1. The lien of attorneys for services rendered in a pending suit is lost by their recovery of a judgment for such services against their client.
    3. The attorneys of record cannot complain of an order of substitution which expressly preserves any lien they may have for services rendered.
    
      Mandamus.
    
    Argued April 5, 1893.
    Denied April 7, 1893.
    Delators, who were attorneys of record for one Bane, the defendant in an action of ejectment, recovered judgment against him for their services in such suit, together with other claims, and obtained a portion of tbe amount thereof, by garnishment proceedings. Subsequently Bane applied to respondent for and obtained an order substituting other attorneys in the place and stead of relators in such ejectment suit, which order provided that the substitution should be without prejudice to relators as to any right, claim, or lien they might have upon papers in their hands pertaining to said suit, or upon any judgment which might be rendered. Belators apply for a mandamus to compel respondent to vacate such order.
    
      Jones & Ciarle, relators, in pro. per.
    
    
      Chamberlain & Cross, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The writ is denied, with costs, the lien being lost by judgment; and, further, the order of substi.tution complained of expressly provided for the preservation of any lien that might exist.  