Gold v. Phillips
New York Supreme Court
THESE were actions of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in the first suit, to recover their fees as attorneys and counsellors in the supreme court, and by the plaintiff, in the second, for his fees as solicitor and counsel in the court of chancery. The cause was tried at the Oneida circuit, on the 3d June, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yales.
Read the full summary
THESE were actions of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in the first suit, to recover their fees as attorneys and counsellors in the supreme court, and by the plaintiff, in the second, for his fees as solicitor and counsel in the court of chancery. The cause was tried at the Oneida circuit, on the 3d June, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yales. The plaintiffs proved a retainer by Aaron Wood, and the performance of their services as stated in- the bills of costs Avhich were produced; the charges in which Avere objected to by the defendants’ counsel. It was proved, by an attorney, who was present,…
1Per curiam
The promise of the defendants was not within ' the statute of frauds. It had no immediate connexion with the i original contract, but was founded on a new and distinct considera- I tion. The distinction noticed in Leonard v. Vredenbergh (8 Johns. Rep. 39.) applies to this case, and takes it out of the statute. The defendants made the promise in consideration of a sale of lands made to them by Aaron Wood; and they assumed to pay the debt of the plaintiffs, as being, by arrangement with Wood, part payment of the purchase-money.
Here was a valid assumption of the debt of Aaron Wood, and the only…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Mallory v. . GillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Barker v. BucklinNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Farley v. ClevelandNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- McDill v. GunnIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Seaman v. HasbrouckNew York Supreme Court · 1861
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.