Jones & Mann v. Savage
10 Wend. 621
Opinion
By the Court,
This very question of the liability of the attorney to costs, was under consideration when this case was before us on a motion for a new trial, and it was then held that he was liable. 6 Wendell, 660. From the case then presented to us it appeared, not only that the attorney was retained by, but that the suit was prosecuted for the benefit of a resident of the state. So in Waring v. Barret, 2 Cowen, 460, we granted a rule against the attorney, although the real plaintiff, one Brady, was a resident of the state.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jones & Mann v. Savage, 10 Wend. 621 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).
10 Wend. 621 (Jones & Mann v. Savage) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Willmont v. Meserole
16 Abb. Pr. 308 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1875)
Boyce v. Bates
8 How. Pr. 495 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)