Matter of Hoglund v. . Griffin

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Hoglund v. . Griffin

99 N.E. 1118, 206 N.Y. 676, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1081

DecidedOctober 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 99 N.E. 1118 (Matter of Hoglund v. . Griffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Hoglund v. . Griffin, 99 N.E. 1118, 206 N.Y. 676, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1081 (N.Y. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the proofs in this case were too meagre to justify the order appealed from, at least, in entirety. Two or three items of disbursements, the attorney swears in his affidavit, were incurred by the direct authority of the client, and of this there is no contradiction in the papers. It also appears, though not very *677 clearly, that some of the matters in controversy were submitted by the consent of the parties to Mr. Battle for. determination, by way of arbitration, and that his determination was adverse to the respondent. Under the circumstances, we think it wiser, instead of attempting any reduction of the amount awarded to the respondent, to reverse the order and remit the application to the Supreme Court to take further proofs.

The order should be reversed, without costs to either party, and application remitted to the Special Term for further hearing.

Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscocic, Chase and Collin, JT., concur. .

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

We think the proofs in this case were too meagre to justify the order appealed from, at least, in entirety. Two or three items of disbursements, the attorney swears in his affidavit, were incurred by the direct authority of the client, and of this there is no contradiction in the papers. It also appears, though not very *677 clearly, that some of the matters in controversy were submitted by the consent of the parties to Mr. Battle for. determination, by way of arbitration, and that his determination was adverse to the respondent. Under the circumstances, we think it wiser, instead of attempting any reduction of the amount awarded to the respondent, to reverse the order and remit the application to the Supreme Court to take further proofs.

The order should be reversed, without costs to either party, and application remitted to the Special Term for further hearing.

Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscocic, Chase and Collin, JT., concur. .

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.E. 1118, 206 N.Y. 676, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-hoglund-v-griffin-ny-1912.