O'Connor v. Lamerdin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connor v. Lamerdin

113 N.Y.S. 546

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 546 (O'Connor v. Lamerdin) 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

O'Connor v. Lamerdin, 113 N.Y.S. 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRICK, J.

This is an action to recover from an attorney an excess of $250 retained by him out of the proceeds' of a note placed in his hands for collection and collected by him pending suit.

[547]*547The sole question relates to the reasonableness of the attorney’s charge. There is considerable and forceful evidence to show that the value of the services rendered was more than $250. Indeed, were the question before us in the first instance, we would find no difficulty in fixing the value at the amount claimed by the attorney. In cases involving the weight of evidence the conclusion of the trial judge should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. In this case there is ample evidence to sustain the finding of the trial justice, and his finding should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

HENDRICK, J.

This is an action to recover from an attorney an excess of $250 retained by him out of the proceeds' of a note placed in his hands for collection and collected by him pending suit.

[547]*547The sole question relates to the reasonableness of the attorney’s charge. There is considerable and forceful evidence to show that the value of the services rendered was more than $250. Indeed, were the question before us in the first instance, we would find no difficulty in fixing the value at the amount claimed by the attorney. In cases involving the weight of evidence the conclusion of the trial judge should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. In this case there is ample evidence to sustain the finding of the trial justice, and his finding should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-lamerdin-nyappterm-1908.