
    United States Title Guaranty Company, Respondent, v. Arthur A. Brown, Appellant.
    
      United States Title Guaranty Co. v. Brown, 166 App. Div. 688, affirmed.
    (Argued January 11, 1916;
    decided January 25, 1916.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 19, 1915, affirming an interlocutory judgment of Special Term in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. This action is brought by the plaintiff to cancel a contract by which the plaintiff employed the defendant, an attorney, to represent certain owners whose property was about to be taken by the city of New York in condemnation proceedings, and to compel the defendant to account and pay over to the • plaintiff moneys which he had collected for and in behalf of the plaintiff, under the terms of the plaintiff’s contracts with such owners; and for moneys which the plaintiff had advanced to the defendant at his request for expenses and witnesses’ fees in the prosecution of such claims and which were subsequently collected by the defendant; and that the defendant be enjoined and restrained from further collecting any of the fees or percentages of awards due to the plaintiff by reason of its contract with such owners and claimants.
    The following questions were certified: “ 1. Was the written agreement made between plaintiff and defendant on July 22, 1910, as found by the trial court herein, illegal ? 2. In an action for an accounting brought by plaintiff upon the written agreement made between plaintiff and defendant on July 22, 1910, may the court require defendant to account for and pay over to plaintiff the amount of the percentages of any awards collected by him on-behalf of the plaintiff ? 3. In such an action may the court require defendant to account for and pay over to plaintiff any moneys paid to him by plaintiff for expenses and witnesses’ fees of the proceedings in which he acted under contracts made with plaintiff or with the defendent or with Harrison T. Slosson and to account for and pay over to plaintiff such expenses as were advanced to defendant by plaintiff and were thereafter allowed by the condemnation commissioners in such proceedings and which were' collected and retained by the defendant.
    
      Frederick N. Van Zandt and Joseph A. Burdeau for appellant.
    
      Benjamin Beass, Hugo Hirsh and Emanuel Newman for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.; Collin and Seabury, JJ., vote to answer the second and third questions in the negative.  