Legal Opinion

In re Schneller

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.

Proceeding to enforce an attorney’s lien. Such a proceeding is not a motion in an action but is a special proceeding (Peri v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 521; Matter of Cartier v. Spooner, 118 App. Div. 342), and the party proceeded against has *85the right to interpose any defense available to him in an equitable action. (Fischer-Harisen v. Brooklyn Heiqhts R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 492, 502.)

By written stipulation the facts set forth in the petition are conceded to be true, and the only matter to be decided is the “ question of law raised by defenses of loches and Statute of Limitations.”…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fischer-Hansen v. . Bklyn. Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Peri v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Borst v. . CoreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  4. Cartier v. WilliamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  5. Greenley v. GreenleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of LevineNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  2. Schneller v. RogersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API