Tuck v. Manning
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Mew York county. This is an appeal by defendant, Jerome F. Manning, from an order denying his motion to substitute Philip Carpenter as his attorney in the place and stead of William J. Weldon, his attorney of record. The ground of this motion was (and the fact is not disputed) that Weldon had refused to render any further services in this and two other actions against the same defendant unless his fees already earned were first paid.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Brunt, P. J.
We fail to see any distinction between the case at bar .and the case of In re H., 93 N. Y. 381. It is true that the court may in a proper case refuse substitution where the client refuses to compensate the at*141tornev for services already rendered. But it is difficult to see how the position of the attorney for the defendant in this case can be justified in his absolute refusal to render any further services in the action unless his bill for previous services is paid. It is claimed upon the part of the respondent that the court will not direct a substitution of attorneys without protecting…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re H—New York Court of Appeals · 1883
3Cited by8 opinions
- Klein v. EubankNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Barkley v. New York Centrall & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Halbert v. GibbsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Reiser v. LoftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Fargo v. PaulNew York Supreme Court · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.