JUDGMENT

Macpherson, J. - The lien relied upon is simply a lien upon the fund recovered in the suit No. 9 of 1869 for the costs of the attorney incurred in that suit. Such a lien is wholly different from a lien on the papers (whether connected with the suit or not) of the client, and it in no degree depends upon the attorney being or having been in possession of the papers of the suit or other documents belonging to his client--see Bozon v. Bolland 4 M. & C., 354. I think there is no doubt that Mr. Pearson has a lien for his-costs of this particular suit, which must eventually prevail against the attachment issued by Roy Lutchmeeput Singh (see Hough v. Edwards 2 Jur., N.S., 814 and Eisdell v. Coningham 28 L.J., Exch., 213, and the cases collected in Darnell's Chancery Practice, 4th Ed., pp. 1698, 1699.) And I further think that the fund recovered is also subject to a, lien for the earlier costs of Mr. Linton and of Mr. Leslie, though Mr. Pearson's lien for his own costs would (apart from any agreement on the subject) take precedence of theirs.

2. But it appears to me that the application which Mr. Pearson makes is in its form misconceived. This fund is attached in the hands of Heeral