The following ruling has been given by his Honour Judge C. S. Lobingier on a motion in this case:
This is a motion "to strike or adjudicate" an attorney's lien claimed by plainciff's former counsel. Formal notice of the lien was filed on May 18, 1922, but a letter had been written to the Clerk of this Court on October 4, 1921, in which the same attorneys "claim a lien on this judgement for. attornoys' fees due and owing." The latter, however, was not a compliance with the provision which provided for. a lien "from giving notice thereof to the party against whom the judgement is given and filing the original with the clerk." The lien actually attached therefore on May 18.
But regardless of this, we find no law in force in this jurisdiction with limits the duration of the lien. The provision that "no lien provided for in this code shall bind any building, structure, or other improvement for a longer period than six months after the same shall have been filed," is contained in the chapter entitled "Liens of Mechanics, Labourers and others'? and evidently has no application to an attorney's lien which attaches to funds and papers of a client, but not to "any building, structure or other improvement." But while we find no fixed: limit for such a lien it seems to be quite within the power of the Court to prevent any delay in its enforcement which would unreasonably sequester funds or papers affected.
Tt is accordingly ordered that claimants be given 10 days within which to file petition to foreclose their alleged lien, that plaintiff may have 10 days thereafter to answer, and that upon the completion of the pleadings the matter may be called up for hearing in the usual way.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.