Macniffe v. Luddington
New York Court of Common Pleas
The plaintiff, as assignee from one James M. Lyddy of a claim against the defendant for professional services, recovered a judgment in one of the districts courts of the city of New York for ninety dollars, the full amount claimed, with costs.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, as assignee from one James M. Lyddy of a claim against the defendant for professional services, recovered a judgment in one of the districts courts of the city of New York for ninety dollars, the full amount claimed, with costs. There were but three witnesses sworn before the justice in the court below, to wit: Lyddy, the assignor of the claim who testified that he rendered the services at the request of the defendant, and that they were worth the amount claimed. The defendant and his attorney, George W. Lord, testified that the services claimed for were rendered at the…
1Per curiam
— This judgment should be reversed. Upon reviewing the evidence, the conclusion is unmistakable that the professional services of Lyddy, in the suit of Nason agt. Luddington, were voluntarily rendered by him at the request and for the benefit of Mr. Lord, the defendant’s attorney, he being at the time confined to his house by illness, and not upon any retainer by the defendant. This is distinctly and positively sworn to both by Lord and by the defendant, whilst Lyddy’s account of his retainer by the defendant. and of the services he rendered is vague, indefinite and in part contradictory.
It…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Schumacher v. WaringNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- New York Small Stock Co. v. Third Ave. RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Fixman v. BrownNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1887
- Gray v. Journal of Finance Publishing Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Phillips v. MunseyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.