Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Ltd. v. Dillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Ltd. v. Dillon

111 A.D. 418, 97 N.Y.S. 1081, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D. 418 (Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Ltd. v. Dillon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Ltd. v. Dillon, 111 A.D. 418, 97 N.Y.S. 1081, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The appellant has been the attorney of record in this action for thp defendant Maclagan since the commencement of the action. The order here appealed from was granted upon the. motion of the defendant Maclagan, the granting of the order evidently being based upon the absolute "right of a party to change his attorney, as no misconduct on the part of the appellant or cause for the substitution is shown.

That a party has the absolute right to change his attorney is without question in this State. Under rule 10 of the General Buies of Practice, however, the rights of the attorney should be protected where no misconduct is shown, and this requires that when an attorney has rendered services and has received no compensation therefor, a substitution should not be granted without protecting his lien. The application of the rule requires, in the present case, that a reference should be ordered to determine the amount due the attorney, the latter to be allowed to retain the papers until the amount due him is determined and paid; that part of.the order, however, which directs substitution to stand.'

The order appealed fr,om should be modified accordingly, and- as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.

Present — O’Brien, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, Laughl'in and Olarke, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle ' order on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam :

The appellant has been the attorney of record in this action for thp defendant Maclagan since the commencement of the action. The order here appealed from was granted upon the. motion of the defendant Maclagan, the granting of the order evidently being based upon the absolute "right of a party to change his attorney, as no misconduct on the part of the appellant or cause for the substitution is shown.

That a party has the absolute right to change his attorney is without question in this State. Under rule 10 of the General Buies of Practice, however, the rights of the attorney should be protected where no misconduct is shown, and this requires that when an attorney has rendered services and has received no compensation therefor, a substitution should not be granted without protecting his lien. The application of the rule requires, in the present case, that a reference should be ordered to determine the amount due the attorney, the latter to be allowed to retain the papers until the amount due him is determined and paid; that part of.the order, however, which directs substitution to stand.'

The order appealed fr,om should be modified accordingly, and- as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.

Present — O’Brien, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, Laughl'in and Olarke, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle ' order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D. 418, 97 N.Y.S. 1081, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anglo-continental-chemical-works-ltd-v-dillon-nyappdiv-1906.