Satterlee v. Frazer
The Superior Court of New York City
Certiorari to the marine court. Frazer sued Satterlee in the court below, and declared against him, “ That the defendant is an attorney at law, and as such received for and on behalf of the plaintiff, a large sum, viz. $60, which he undertook and promised to pay the plaintiff. Nevertheless the defendant, though often requested so to do, has and does wholly refuse. Also, on the money counts and account stated.”
Read the full summary
Certiorari to the marine court. Frazer sued Satterlee in the court below, and declared against him, “ That the defendant is an attorney at law, and as such received for and on behalf of the plaintiff, a large sum, viz. $60, which he undertook and promised to pay the plaintiff. Nevertheless the defendant, though often requested so to do, has and does wholly refuse. Also, on the money counts and account stated.” The case which the plaintiff sought to prove on the trial, and which the court below decided that he established, was this : Stephen Barker, having a demand of $110 against Peter A.…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Sandford, J.
Without looking into the merits of the question of fact disposed of in the court below, we think there are two grounds upon which the judgment must be set aside.
1. The defendant below was sued as an attorney at law, for money collected by him as such, for the plaintiff and on his retainer. Now, there is no point better settled than this, that such an action cannot be maintained without proof of an actual demand of the money. Our reports are full of decisions to this effect, and it would be a waste of time to cite them at large. In this case there is no evidence of a demand.
2. The agreement by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wallis v. LoubatNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- In re BleakleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boardman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Scobey v. RossIndiana Supreme Court · 1854