This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 edition. Excerpt: ...may prosecute a separate action against the adverse litigant to recover his fee, and the measure of his recovery shall be the sum he would have received had the cause of his client proceeded to final judgment; and, to determine this, he may establish the merits of his client's cause of action (following Herman Const. Co. v. Wood, 35 Okla. 193, 128 Pac. 300). Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Williams. 49 Okla. 126, 152 Pac. 305. (1916) Where an attorney files a lien claim for his fee, as provided by statute, and the case is without his knowledge or consent compromised and dismissed by his client before a trial and judgment is had. he may sue the party who settled with his client for the amount of his fee, and on hearing in that case present the facts essential to establish the merits of the case in which he was employed; and if his client should have prevailed in that action, then he is entitled to recover in his action the amount of his lien claim; but if his client had no rights, then his cause of action must fail. Crump v. Guyer, 60 Okla. 222. 157 Pac. 321. (1916) In an action under Comp. Laws 1919, ch. 5, art. 2, to recover an attorney fee from an adverse litigant who has compromised or settled an action, it is necessary for plaintiff to show that such litigation had been compromised and settled without notice or opportunity for plaintiff to be present and to procure evidence as to the merits of his client's cause and establish his client's right to recover therein; and, in the absence of evidence to establish these facts, a demurrer to the evidence should be sustained. Whitehead v. Spriggs. 58 Okla. 42, 156 Pac. 439. (1918) Where a client contracted to pay a contingent fee, and compromised with the adverse party, without attorney's...