Attorney and Client — Contract of employment — Charging lien — Verdict of jury in condemnation case — Services rendered before viewers — Jury trial.
In a proceeding upon a petition filed by an attorney praying for a charging lien against a verdict in a stated sum awarded by a jury to plaintiff on account of the taking by defendant authority of certain real property and asking that judgment be awarded to petitioner in a specified sum for professional services rendered, in which it appeared that the court below, against plaintiff's contentions, (1) found as a fact that plaintiff employed petitioner to represent him before the board of viewers, and concluded (2) that whether or not plaintiff employed petitioner was a question of fact to be heard by the court itself sitting as chancellor in equity, and that plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial, and that (3) the services rendered by petitioner in the necessary procedures and at the hearing before the viewers, prior to jury trial, were all a necessary part of creating the ultimate verdict of the jury and, therefore, petitioner, although he had not represented plaintiff at the trial in the court below on appeal from the award of the viewers, was entitled to a charging lien against the fund represented by the jury verdict, it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Argued November 12, 1959.
OPINION PER CURIAM, December 17, 1959:
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge WEISS for the court below reported at 19 Pa. D. C. 2d 120.