M'Dowell v. Appleby

New York Supreme Court

M'Dowell v. Appleby

1 How. Pr. 229

DecidedSeptember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. 229 (M'Dowell v. Appleby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M'Dowell v. Appleby, 1 How. Pr. 229 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Manning, attorney for plaintiffs, alleged that M'Dowell was insolvent, and that it was a collusion between plaintiffs in error and Stoughton to defraud him of his costs; but insisted that their agreement to discontinue the writ of error did not render the transaction valid as against their attorney’s claim: that he had notified Stoughton he should disregard any settlement, unless his costs were paid.

Beardsley, Justice.

The attorney had no lien for costs : he had nothing to have a lien upon; there was no lien. The motion must be granted with costs. Rule accordingly.

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

Manning, attorney for plaintiffs, alleged that M'Dowell was insolvent, and that it was a collusion between plaintiffs in error and Stoughton to defraud him of his costs; but insisted that their agreement to discontinue the writ of error did not render the transaction valid as against their attorney’s claim: that he had notified Stoughton he should disregard any settlement, unless his costs were paid.

Beardsley, Justice.

The attorney had no lien for costs : he had nothing to have a lien upon; there was no lien. The motion must be granted with costs. Rule accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mdowell-v-appleby-nysupct-1845.