Legal Opinion

Stuart v. Trihas

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided November 27, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants, as clients, had the right to terminate plaintiffs’ services, as attorneys, for any reason they saw fit and thereupon plaintiffs were entitled to recover only a sum equal to the reasonable value of the work performed up to the time of discharge, determinable solely on the basis of quantum meruit (Martin v. Camp, 219 N. Y. 170, 174; Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N. Y. 467, 470; Matter of Tillman, 259 N. Y. 133, 135). The refusal of defendants to permit plaintiffs to complete the services was equivalent to a discharge.

The judgment should be reversed, judgment directed for plaintiffs and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martin v. . CampNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Matter of TillmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Robinson v. . RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fellner v. ZuckerbergCity of New York Municipal Court · 1951
  2. Carter v. CarterCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API