Hotchkiss v. Le Roy
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Le Roy and Rodgers, who were partners, as attorneys, brought an action against Hotchkiss, before the justice, to recover the amount of a bill of costs, in a certain suit commenced by them, for the defendant, in the court of common pleas of Broome county- The defendant pleaded non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Le Roy and Rodgers, who were partners, as attorneys, brought an action against Hotchkiss, before the justice, to recover the amount of a bill of costs, in a certain suit commenced by them, for the defendant, in the court of common pleas of Broome county- The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. The plaintiffs proved, by the attorney for the defendant, in the cause in the court of common pleas, that Le Roy and Rodgers acted as attorBeys. for the plaintiff; and that he considered them as sych, in the progress of the suit; but there was no other proof…
1Per curiam
There is no evidence whatever that the plain- , . tins below were 'employed by the defendant to prosecute the suit, in which the bill of costs, for which this suit was brought, arose, ft js hardly to be presumed, that the suit was commenced and. Jr, prosecuted without his directions, but some evidence ought to have been offered to the jury, to authorize them to draw such a conclusion. Although it might be difficult, and, perhaps, impossiftje jn most cases, to prove the original employment, yet some, recognition of the attorney m the progress ot a suit, may easily be shown, and without some…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grimball v. CruseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Turner v. MyersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Burghart v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Hopkins v. MallardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1848