Show ATTORNEYS LIEN GOOD Judgment for 2500 Against Ajax y t Company Affirmed h The Supreme court affirmed the vor r diet and judgment rendered in the Fifth District court In the case of Joseph F Potter vs the AJax Mining L company appellant The action took kL an unusual turn Potter was hurt in the Ajax mine where he was employed vi I By Attorneys J E Page and Powers Straup Lippman he filed suit to recover 1i re-cover 15000 damages He made a u4 contract with his attorneys that for t1 remuneration for their services In Uh i i prosecuting the case they would receive Ti re-ceive half of whatever amount might be recovered During the pendency of t the action the plaintiff without the i knowledge of his attorneys made a I cAr settlement for 1200 with the Ajax company through the London Guaranty Guar-anty company with which the Ajax T company had an Insurance policy to tS Indemnify It against claims of its employees em-ployees for damages for personal injuries In-juries Potter then wanted the action dismissed but his attorneys refused to consent to a dismissal claiming that under their contract with Potter they had a lien on Pottery claim The trial court held with the attorneys and I the action was tried before u jury I toj determine tho amoimt the attorneys were entitled toreceive Theresult was verdict In fnvor of the attorneys frtr 52500 against the Ajax company The company appealed contending that Page and Powers Straup Lipp man had no lien on the claim and that the settlement with Potter was iIt final 1 J i The Supreme court held that the settlement J f set-tlement betweenPotter the Ajax company iv4 com-pany and the Guaranty company was fraudulent and made for the purpose I of defrauding the attorneys out of their remuneration which the court held was a valid lien on Potters claim The court also held that the arrangement arrange-ment between Potter and his attorneys 1 attor-neys was not prejudicial to the 4Jax I company and did not In any way art p i ar-t ct Its liability for damages to Potter even If the contract between Potter h I and his attorneys had been champer tous The court also held that the payment of the 1200 to Potter as a ifes I settlement was an admission of liability btI lia-bility on the part of the Ajax com ar4 1 pan to panThe judgment of the trial court was liefi therefore affirmed The opinion was pji written by Justice Miner and concurred lt c con-curred In by Chief Justice Bartch I Justice Baskin dissented cVl |