Opinion
12-30-1937
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH OF PERTH AMBOY, N. J., v. GENGOR et al.
Stephen F. Somogyi, of Perth Amboy, and Adolph L. Engelke, of Jersey City, pro se, for the application.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The Attorneys' Lien Act, chapter 201, P.L.1914, Comp.St.Supp.1924, § 116—76, has no application to proceedings in chancery by counterclaim.
2. In the absence of statute or special agreement, the general rule is that an attorney has no lien on the lands or property of his client, title to which he has successfully defended.
Bill by St. John the Baptist Greek Catholic Church of Perth Amboy, N. J., against George Gengor, the Greek Congregation of St. John the Baptist, and others, wherein defendants filed a counterclaim. On separate ex parte applications by Stephen F. Somogyi and another, attorneys for defendants, for orders directing defendants to show cause why liens should not be impressed upon the real and personal property of the Greek Congregation of St. John the Baptist to the extent of the value of services rendered to the congregation by applicants.
Applications denied.
Stephen F. Somogyi, of Perth Amboy, and Adolph L. Engelke, of Jersey City, pro se, for the application.
BERRY, Vice Chancellor.
This matter is now before the court on separate ex parte applications by the petitioners for orders directing the defendants to show cause why liens should not be impressed upon the real and personal property of Greek Congregation of St. John the Baptist to the extent of the value of services rendered to the congregation by petitioners in the cause entitled as above, in which they filed an answer and counterclaim and succeeded in defending the Congregation's title to its property. 118 N. J.Eq. 467, 180 A. 379; 121 N.J.Eq. 349, 189 A. 113. Reliance is placed upon the Attorneys' Lien Act, chapter 201, P.L.1914, Comp.St.Supp. 1924, § 116—76, but the. statute does not apply. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 117 N.J.Eq. 22, 174 A. 751; Norrell v. Smith, 122 N.J.Eq. 534, 195 A. 340
Petitioners also contend that, disregarding the statute, they are entitled to an equitable lien. However, in the absence of a statute or special agreement, the general rule is that an attorney has no lien on the lands of his client, title to which he has successfully defended. 6 C.J. 780, paragraph 391, Annotation, 93 A.L.R. 670. The rule also applies where personal property is involved. Annotation, 93 A.L.R. 689 and cases cited; 5 Am.Jur. 396, § 224.
Since the Attorneys' Lien Act is not applicable, petitioners having neither instituted an action at law or in equity nor filed a counterclaim at law, the many cases cited by petitioners, including Grimm v. Franklin, 102 N.J.Eq. 198, 140 A. 236; Artale v. Columbia Insurance Company, 109 N.J.L. 463, 162 A. 585, and Flavell v. Flavell, 189 A. 639, 15 N.J.Misc. 167, likewise have no application; and petitioner's remedy, as suggested in McCarthy v. McCarthy, supra, is by suit.
The application will be denied.