Loughlin v. Sundquist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loughlin v. Sundquist

264 A.D. 985, 37 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5625

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 985 (Loughlin v. Sundquist) 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

Loughlin v. Sundquist, 264 A.D. 985, 37 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum: The amount of the verdict could only have been based on a finding of the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to such an amount by reason of the alleged contract of retainer. Such a finding was against the weight of evidence. The charge, although it should have done so, did not instruct the jury as to the method by which it could determine the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled if he were entitled to recover on the basis of quantum meruit. AU concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover fees for legal services.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum: The amount of the verdict could only have been based on a finding of the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to such an amount by reason of the alleged contract of retainer. Such a finding was against the weight of evidence. The charge, although it should have done so, did not instruct the jury as to the method by which it could determine the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled if he were entitled to recover on the basis of quantum meruit. AU concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover fees for legal services.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 985, 37 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loughlin-v-sundquist-nyappdiv-1942.