Taylor v. Enthoven

88 N.Y.S. 138

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 138 (Taylor v. Enthoven) 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
Taylor v. Enthoven, 88 N.Y.S. 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The letter written by plaintiff’s assignor, an attorney at law, to the defendant, explicitly states that the agreement for legal services upon which the recovery is sought provided for a contingent fee of 50 per cent, upon a recovery, the attorney to advance all the court costs. Such an agreement is champertous and unlawful, within the meaning of section 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Stedwell v. Hartmann, 74 App. Div. 126, 77 N. Y. Supp. 498; In the Matter of Fitzsimons, 174 N. Y. 15, 23, 66 N. E. 554.

The motions to dismiss, made at the close of plaintiff’s case and of the entire case upon the ground that the contract was void, should have been granted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with.costs to appellant to abide the-event.

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

Related

In Re the Accounting of Fitzsimons
66 N.E. 554 (New York Court of Appeals, 1903)
Stedwell v. Hartmann
74 A.D. 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 N.Y.S. 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-enthoven-nyappterm-1904.