But courts have an inherent power to Pro' tect attorneys against settlements consum mated with the express purpose of depriv ing them of their compensation ; Potter v. Min. Co., 19 Utah 421, 57 Pac. 270 ; Jones v. Morgan, 39 Ga. 310, 99 Am. Dec. 458 ; Jack son v. Stearns, 48 Or. 25, 84 Pac. 798, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 390. The attorney may proceed in the original suit in the name of his client notwithstanding the settlement; Randall v. Van Wagepen, 115 N. Y. 527, 22 N. E. 361, 12 Am. St. Rep. 828. But this rule applies only when the attorney has acquired a lien ; Weicher v. Cargill, 86 Minn. 271, 90 N. W. 402; and it is said that there are serious practical difficulties in the way of such a pro cedure when the action is to recover unliq uidated damages. The power to arrest or rescind the effect of a settlement is cautious ly exercised in respect to suits for debts ac tually 'owing ; and the power would be more cautiously applied to actions for torts, where it would be impracticable for the court, upon the opposing representations of the parties and without hearing the proof, to ascertain whether there was a just cause of action or whether there was ground to distrust the justice of the settlement. The whole case
would have to be tried before the court could pronounce that the suit was properly insti tuted, and that it afforded prima facie ground for the award of costs ; Boogren v. R. Co., 97 Minn. 51, 106 N. W. 104, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379, 114 Am. St. Rep. 691, where the court adopting the language of Betts, J., in Peterson v. Watson, & H. 487, Fed. Cas. No. 11,037, concludes: "That manifestly could never be done without serious incon venience and expense ; and the better prac tical rule will doubtless be to' leave the proc tor to look to the responsibility of his client alone. Ordinarily he will take the precau tion to secure himself against the mischanc es of suits of this character ; and if he does not, no urgent equity is thereby created for an extraordinary interference on his behalf by the court." This practice may occasional ly work a hardship to the attorneys, but it is nevertheless a salutary rule.
As to the right of the attorney to recover under statutes giving him a lien, where his client has settled without his knowledge, see