Wise v. Cohen

113 A.D. 859, 99 N.Y.S. 663, 37 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 152, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1563
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1906·No. No. 1·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Ingraham,, J.:

This action is in equity to enforce an attorney’s lien upon a cause of action which has been settled between the parties without his consent. The case was tried at Special Term," At the opening Of the case the defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint upon the,ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute "a cause of action. The court announced that it reserved its decision upon this motion, whereupon witnesses were called for the plaintiff ■ and were examined and cross-examined., The plaintiff then rested and the defendant then renewed his motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds and the decision- of this motion was also reserved, whereupon the' defendant called his witnesses and their, testimony was taken and’ the; defendant rested. Counsel for the'defendant then renewed his motion to dismiss the- complaint on- the' various . grounds stated. The court again reserved it¡s decision but gave . counsel an opportunity to submit briefs. These briefs having been submitted the .court filed an opinion overruling some of the objections made by the defendant, but held that as'there was no proof of the solvency or insolvency of the client the attorneys must look -> to her for tlie'ir compensation,, and that defendants were" entitled to judgment on the ground that no proof was presented as to the responsibility of the plaintiffs’ client to" respond in an action' at law, whereupon the defendants presented to the court what they called [861] a decision.wliicii consisted of twenty-six pages of printed record and a proposed judgment. The court refused to sign this decision or judgment, but subsequently- signed what purported to be a judg-' ment which' recited that the action came on for trial at a Special. Term of the Supreme Court, and the defendants having moved at the close of the evidence for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action, and due deliberation-having-been had thereon, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that-the complaint.be dismissed without prejudice for failure of proof, with directions as to the costs of the action. This judgment having been signed, counsel for the defendant made, a motion at Special Term that the case be sent back to the trial justice to sign and file a decision and judgment in the trial of the action. This motion seems to . have been referred to the trial justice, who denied it, and from that order the defendant appeals. I think the defendants are entitled to have the trial court sign and tile a decision in the action. The action was in equity, and the complaint asked for specific equitable relief.

Section 10Í0 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that upon a trial by the court, of an issue, of fact or of law, its decision in writing must be filed in the clerk’s office within twenty days after the final adjournment of the term where the issue was tried. Section 1021 provides that the decision of the court or the report of a referee upon the trial of a demurrer, or upon the trial of issues of fact or of law, where a nonsuit is granted, must direct the final or interlocutory judgment to be entered thereupon, and in such a case it shall not be necessary for the court or referee to make any finding of fact.

Section 1022 provides that the decision of the court or the report of a referee, upon the trial Of the whole issues of fact, must state separately the facts found and the conclusions of law, and direct the judgment to be entered thereon, which1 decision so filed shall form part of the judgment roll. Judgments are regulated by. chapter 11 of the Code.

Section 1236 of the Code provides that every interlocutory judgment or final judgment shall be signed by the clerk and filed in his office, and such signing and filing shall constitute the entry,of the judgment. These provisions have been in force many years, and are entirely [862] • consistent and 'easily understood. Upon the final judgment in an action tried.by a court without a jury or by a referee, the decision of ¡-the .court is the basis of the judgment to be entered. That decision must be In writing ánd signed by the judge and filed with the clerk, and must direct the final or interlocutory judgment to be entered thereon. The judgment entered thereon must -be signed by the clerk and filed in his office, and such signing atid filing is an entry of judgment. Where the issue is one of law or where a nonsuit 'is granted,'the facts need not be found" separately, blit there must be -a decision which must, direct tile final or interlocutory judgment to be entered thereon." The provisions, in relation to nonsuit can, 'strictly speaking, apply only to actions at law. Where in an action in .equity for lack of proof or want of equity the complaint is: dismissed, it may be upon the merits, or it may.be because the plaintiff has failed to prove a particular fact, which is fatal to his right to :a judgment,- and a final judgment dismissing the complaint .does riot prevent a new action unless it expressly declares, or it appears by ' the judgment roll that it is rendered upon the merits. (Code Civ. Proc. •§ 1209.) The. cases cited by respondents are all actions at law. ' ' • -

In Weeks v. Van Mess (104 App. Div. 7) the action was: for damages resulting from the abuse of legal process, and, therefore," an action at law.

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

Wise v. Cohen, 113 A.D. 859, 99 N.Y.S. 663, 37 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 152, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

113 A.D. 859 (Wise v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sternkopf v. Hillers
247 A.D. 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Lyon v. Water Commissioners
224 A.D. 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
National Park Bank v. Billings
144 A.D. 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Wise v. Cohen
113 A.D. 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)