Lenney v. Salomon

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lenney v. Salomon

33 Misc. 779, 67 N.Y.S. 1138

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Misc. 779 (Lenney v. Salomon) 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

Lenney v. Salomon, 33 Misc. 779, 67 N.Y.S. 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Exhibits A. and B. do not constitute a contract between plaintiffs and defendant on which plaintiffs can sue. The attorneys for the defendant in the action of Heisman v. Salomon had no authority to bind the defendant to pay the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the action last above mentioned their fees. Moreover, even if the defendant’s attorney had the implied authority to make the contract set up in the complaint herein it was no more than a contract to pay the sum of $150' and costs, that is taxable costs, or costs to be taxed. The evidence shows that costs never have been taxed.

This case is to be distinguished from the case of Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 49 App. Div. 22, in which the agreement was entitled in the action and signed on behalf of the defendant by the individual who made the settlement and is an express agreement of the defendant.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dueño, J J.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

Exhibits A. and B. do not constitute a contract between plaintiffs and defendant on which plaintiffs can sue. The attorneys for the defendant in the action of Heisman v. Salomon had no authority to bind the defendant to pay the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the action last above mentioned their fees. Moreover, even if the defendant’s attorney had the implied authority to make the contract set up in the complaint herein it was no more than a contract to pay the sum of $150' and costs, that is taxable costs, or costs to be taxed. The evidence shows that costs never have been taxed.

This case is to be distinguished from the case of Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 49 App. Div. 22, in which the agreement was entitled in the action and signed on behalf of the defendant by the individual who made the settlement and is an express agreement of the defendant.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dueño, J J.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Misc. 779, 67 N.Y.S. 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenney-v-salomon-nyappterm-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack