Wooster v. Chamberlin
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The following facts were established by the proofs: That in the year 1849, and prior and subsequent to that time, the defendant, Henry Chamberlin, and James Wood, jun. were attorneys and counsellors at law, doing business at Geneseo, in the county of Livingston, as joint partners, under the firm, name and style of Chamberlin & Wood.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The following facts were established by the proofs: That in the year 1849, and prior and subsequent to that time, the defendant, Henry Chamberlin, and James Wood, jun. were attorneys and counsellors at law, doing business at Geneseo, in the county of Livingston, as joint partners, under the firm, name and style of Chamberlin & Wood. That in the said year 1849, one John S. Royce commenced an action in the supreme court against Sanford A. Hooper, by Chamberlin & Wood, his attorneys; that the action was defended by said Hooper; that on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
The complaint in this’ action states that the defendant was one of the attorneys for the recovery of a judgment in favor of Eoyce against Hooper, which it claims was paid to the defendant. The money which it is claimed was received by the defendant, by the plaintiff’s own showing, was received by him as one of a partnership, composed of two or more attorneys. The answer sets up that the said partnership was composed of the defendant and James Wood, jun., who are jointly liable to the plaintiff for such money. The answer sets up a perfect defense in the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Schwartz v. WechlerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Anderton v. WolfNew York Supreme Court · 1886
- Maxwell v. PrattNew York Supreme Court · 1881
- Van Slyck v. NewtonNew York Supreme Court · 1877