Cruikshank v. Goodwin

20 N.Y.S. 757, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 603
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 18, 1892·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

The authority of an attorney to appear for his client ceases after the entry of the final judgment in the action, with the exception that he may issue execution and take the necessary steps to collect the judgment, and, under the provisions of the old Revised Statutes and the Code of Civil Procedure, may, in the absence of a revocation of his authority, execute a satisfaction of the judgment within two years after its entry. Lusk v. Hastings, 1 Hill, 659; Walradt v. Maynard, 3 Barb. 584; Egan v. Rooney, 38 How. Pr. 121. We. are of the opinion that the order below was right, and it is therefore affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

Cruikshank v. Goodwin, 20 N.Y.S. 757, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 603 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

20 N.Y.S. 757 (Cruikshank v. Goodwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

International Railway Co. v. Pickarski
114 Misc. 349 (New York Supreme Court, 1921)
Slepin v. Beck
84 Misc. 254 (New York Supreme Court, 1914)
Eckert v. Truman
158 A.D. 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Davis v. Solomon
25 Misc. 695 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Magnolia Metal Co. v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co.
26 Misc. 63 (New York Supreme Court, 1899)