Ex parte Statts
New York Supreme Court
The relator Staats had left a bond with J. W. Edmonds, Esq. an attorney of this Court, to the end that he should wrpe f0 the obligor to pay to him, (Edmonds,) for the use , ■ , of .Staats, who was the obligee, the money due upon the bond ; but he did not direct Mr. Edmonds to commence a suit upon it, in case the obligor should make default in paying according to such written request.
Read the full summary
The relator Staats had left a bond with J. W. Edmonds, Esq. an attorney of this Court, to the end that he should wrpe f0 the obligor to pay to him, (Edmonds,) for the use , ■ , of .Staats, who was the obligee, the money due upon the bond ; but he did not direct Mr. Edmonds to commence a suit upon it, in case the obligor should make default in paying according to such written request. The obligor paid the money to Mr. Edmonds, who had neglected to pay it over to the obligee, though repeatedly requested by the obhg to do this. Mr. Edmonds made affidavit that he was poor and unable to raise the…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The motion must be granted. It is plain that this bond was left with Mr. Edmonds in his character of attorney, though no specific directions were given to bring a suit. It turned out that there was no need of a suit. The money was paid in; and the relator is entitled to our aid in obtaining it, in the same manner as if collected by suit.
Rule to show cause.(a)
In the matter of Knight, (1 Bingham's Rep. 91, C. B. Mich. T. 1822.) Lens, Serjt. on a former day, moved for a rule calling on Knight, an attorney of this Court, to show cause why ho should not pay over to one Hall, money which ho…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Askew v. DupreeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Chance v. TempleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- McFarland v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Anderson v. BosworthSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1887
- People ex rel. White v. FeenaughtyNew York Supreme Court · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.