Buxton v. Lietz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Buxton v. Lietz

139 N.Y.S. 46

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 9, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 139 N.Y.S. 46 (Buxton v. Lietz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buxton v. Lietz, 139 N.Y.S. 46 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues upon a contract made between his assignor and the defendant. The contract calls for the perform[47]*47anee of services on the part of the plaintiff’s assignor, which can only be lawfully performed by an attorney and counselor at law duly licensed to practice law in this state. At the time the contract sued upon was made with the “Meacham-Burton Mercantile Agency,” the plaintiff’s assignor, the so-called “agency” was a partnership not composed of members of the bar of this state. On February 8, 1912, the partnership was dissolved, and its business assigned to the plaintiff, who continues to do business under the name of the former partnership. It is also conceded that the plaintiff has not been duly licensed to practice law. The learned court below dismissed the complaint, on the ground that ¿he contract sued upon was illegal.

We think that this disposition of the case was proper. The appellant contends that, at the time the contract was made, on March 10, 1911, it was not illegal, because chapter 483 of the Laws of 1909 merely prohibited a corporation from practicing law, and that the amendment to that law made by chapter 317 of the Laws of 1911, so as to make the prohibitions therein contained apply to voluntary associations, did not go into effect until September 1, 1911, which was after the contract in suit was made. We think that the argument urged by the appellant is immaterial to the question at issue. Quite apart from the statutory provisions referred to, the plaintiff and his assignor, not being duly licensed to practice law, had no right to contract so to do, and any contract made for this purpose was illegal. The principle upon which this ruling rests is so fully discussed in Matter of Application of Co-operative Law Co., 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. E. 15, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 551, 139 Am. St. Rep. 839, 19 Ann. Cas. 879, that further discussion seems to us unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues upon a contract made between his assignor and the defendant. The contract calls for the perform[47]*47anee of services on the part of the plaintiff’s assignor, which can only be lawfully performed by an attorney and counselor at law duly licensed to practice law in this state. At the time the contract sued upon was made with the “Meacham-Burton Mercantile Agency,” the plaintiff’s assignor, the so-called “agency” was a partnership not composed of members of the bar of this state. On February 8, 1912, the partnership was dissolved, and its business assigned to the plaintiff, who continues to do business under the name of the former partnership. It is also conceded that the plaintiff has not been duly licensed to practice law. The learned court below dismissed the complaint, on the ground that ¿he contract sued upon was illegal.

We think that this disposition of the case was proper. The appellant contends that, at the time the contract was made, on March 10, 1911, it was not illegal, because chapter 483 of the Laws of 1909 merely prohibited a corporation from practicing law, and that the amendment to that law made by chapter 317 of the Laws of 1911, so as to make the prohibitions therein contained apply to voluntary associations, did not go into effect until September 1, 1911, which was after the contract in suit was made. We think that the argument urged by the appellant is immaterial to the question at issue. Quite apart from the statutory provisions referred to, the plaintiff and his assignor, not being duly licensed to practice law, had no right to contract so to do, and any contract made for this purpose was illegal. The principle upon which this ruling rests is so fully discussed in Matter of Application of Co-operative Law Co., 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. E. 15, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 551, 139 Am. St. Rep. 839, 19 Ann. Cas. 879, that further discussion seems to us unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.Y.S. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buxton-v-lietz-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack