Barnum v. Burlingame

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnum v. Burlingame

154 A.D. 897, 138 N.Y.S. 829

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D. 897 (Barnum v. Burlingame) 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

Barnum v. Burlingame, 154 A.D. 897, 138 N.Y.S. 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

The court could not secure payment to the respondent for his legal services by the application of any remedy that depends upon the relation of attorney and client, inasmuch as the attorney terminated that relation without sufficient cause. (Matter of H-, 93 N. Y. 381; Matter of Dunn, 205 id. 398.) Such termination worked relegation to ordinary remedie:’- The order is modified by striking out the provision for payment by the client, and as thus modified it is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order modified by striking out the provision for payment by the client, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Jenks, P. J.:

The court could not secure payment to the respondent for his legal services by the application of any remedy that depends upon the relation of attorney and client, inasmuch as the attorney terminated that relation without sufficient cause. (Matter of H-, 93 N. Y. 381; Matter of Dunn, 205 id. 398.) Such termination worked relegation to ordinary remedie:’- The order is modified by striking out the provision for payment by the client, and as thus modified it is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order modified by striking out the provision for payment by the client, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D. 897, 138 N.Y.S. 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnum-v-burlingame-nyappdiv-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack