In re Southwick
New York Court of Chancery
DICKINSON and MITCHELL, solicitors, applied to the court, by petition, stating that they had procured a commission of lunacy to be sued out and executed in this case, and that A. Staples was appointed committee of the lunatic’s estate, and that they had done other business for and in behalf of the said committee.; that the lunatic had since been discharged from the operation of the commission, hut the disease returning, a new committee, upon a new commission, had again been…
Read the full summary
DICKINSON and MITCHELL, solicitors, applied to the court, by petition, stating that they had procured a commission of lunacy to be sued out and executed in this case, and that A. Staples was appointed committee of the lunatic’s estate, and that they had done other business for and in behalf of the said committee.; that the lunatic had since been discharged from the operation of the commission, hut the disease returning, a new committee, upon a new commission, had again been appointed; and that Staples was about transferring his custody of the estate to the new committee, and had refused to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The court does not, ordinarily, and of course, interfere to compel the payment of solicitors’ fees. In certain cases 'such interference may be requisite, as where the committee becomes insolvent, and the costs would be lost unless made a charge upon the fund. Such was the case ex parte Price, (2 Ves, 407.;) and in the'case also of Barnsley v. Powell, (Amb, 102.,) the Chancellor declared, that the solicitor should stand in the place of the committee, so far as to enjoy the benefit of the committee’s lien on the estate, as to the costs of a suit prosecuted for the lunatic. The…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Pratt v. MorrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Binsse v. PaigeNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Wilson's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Brick v. CampbellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1888
- Brown v. BigleyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1878