Sanders v. Gillett

8 Daly 183
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided December 2, 1878·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Charles P. Daly, Chief Justice.

The lien of the attorney has, in this State, always been regarded as subject to the equitable right of set-off between the parties. I adverted to this distinction in Ward v. Wordsworth (1 E. D. Smith, 603) as settled by the cases of Spencer v. White (1 Johns. Cases, 102), Pindar v. Morris (3 Cai. 165) and The People, &c., v. Manning (13 Wend. 652), and it was upheld in Roberts v. Carter (24 How. Pr. 44) and Brooks v. Handford (15 Abb. Pr. 342).

The decision below, therefore, must be affirmed, there being no question where the defendant is insolvent, but that it is equitable to order the set-off. (Rignolet v. Greer, 19 Abb. Pr. 264 ; Bradley v. Angell, 3.N. Y. 475.)

Yah Hoesen, J., concurred.

Order affirmed.

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

Sanders v. Gillett, 8 Daly 183 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

8 Daly 183 (Sanders v. Gillett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wabash Railroad v. Bowring
103 Mo. App. 158 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Howitt v. Merrill
2 Silv. Ct. App. 158 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Smith v. Chenoweth
14 Daly 166 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1887)
Hall v. Dusenbury
4 Dem. Sur. 181 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1885)