
    FINNISH MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. PATEK.
    Attorney and Client — Liens—Interpleader.
    In a suit by interpleader to determine, as between an attorney and his client, the proper amount of the attorney’s lien on a judgment against plaintiff, the decree of the court below in favor of the attorney is affirmed, on appeal.
    
    
      Appeal fi'om Ontonagon; Driscoll (George O.), J.
    Submitted October 14, 1924.
    (Docket No. 83.)
    Decided December 10, 1924.
    Bill of interpleader by the Finnish Mutual Fire Insurance Company against Solomon W. Patek and Samuel H. Shankey to determine the title to a judgment. From the decree rendered, defendant Shankey appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      John J. Walsh, for appellant.
    
      Jones & Patek (Myron H. Walker, of counsel), for appellee.
    
      
      Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. § 2855.
    
   Clark, C. J.

Defendant Shankey, aided by defendant Patek as his attorney, recovered a judgment against plaintiff herein. A dispute arose between defendants as to the amount due as attorney’s fees and charges. The attorney claimed a charging lien on the judgment. Plaintiff filed a bill of interpleader. The issue between the defendants is purely one of fact. There is a conflict in direct testimony without other evidence or circumstances worthy of note. One defendant testified that the attorney was to have one sum. The other defendant testified of another sum. Each was supported by corroborating testimony. The trial judge who heard the witnesses and saw them on the stand found and decreed in favor of defendant Patek. Defendant Shankey has appealed.

After a careful reading of the record, we must decline to disturb the decree made. It is affirmed, with costs to defendant Patek against the other defendant.

McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.  