Balluff v. Balluff
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2008, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Byram v. Miner (8th Cir. 1931)
- Kaibel v. Municipal Building Commission (D. Minn. 2013)
- Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
- Williams v. Dow Chemical Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Caulfield v. C. W. Jewett Co. Inc. (Minn. 1931)
- Dell v. Marckel (Minn. 1931)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant appeals from a judgment of the district court of Big Stone county reinstating a judgment and permitting its enforcement to the extent of the lien of the plaintiff’s attorney for services.
The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant on November 2, 1925, for $1,480.50. His attorney was W. B. Mitton. His agreement with Mitton was that he was to have one-fourth of the recovery for his services. Later the plaintiff and the defendant settled for $1,350 and the judgment was satisfied. Mitton had expended $6.50 for costs. The trial court allowed him this sum plus one-fourth of $1,350, a total of $344, and ordered that the judgment be reinstated to the extent of that amount and that plaintiff be permitted to enforce it.
A lien is given to an attorney for his compensation “upon the cause of action from the time of the service of the summons therein,” and upon a judgment “from the time of giving notice of his claim to the judgment debtor.” G. S. 1923, § 5695 (1, 5). The lien upon the cause of action is not dependent, under the present statute, upon notice. The defendant is charged with notice. Kubu v. Kabes, 142 Minn. 433, 172 N. W. 496, and cases cited. There is evidence that the defendant had notice that the attorney for the plaintiff claimed a lien. No form of notice is required and actual notice is sufficient. Northrup v. Hayward, 102 Minn. 307, 113 N. W. 701, 12 Ann. Cas. 341. 'Whether the lien on the cause of action extends to the judgment, as against the judgment debtor, though he is without notice, need not be decided. The cases of Barnes v. Verry, 154 Minn. 252, 191 N. W. 589, 31 A. L. R. 707, and Kubu v. Kabes, 142 Minn. 433, 172 N. W. 496, review the cases and are our latest ones on the question of attorneys’ liens.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.