Legal Opinion

Ex parte Ferguson

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1827PublishedCited by 3 opinions

A Sr attorney of this court had collected money for the relator by suit, which he had not paid over. On an affidavit of these facts, a motion was now made for a rule that the attorney pay over the money ; or shew cause why an attachment should not issue against him. But the affida-v¡t did not shew that a demand of the money had been made of the attorney,

1Per curiam

The money should first have been demanded. The motion must, for that reason, be denied.

Motion denied,

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re DaviesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
  2. McFarland v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1828
  3. Douglas v. CorryOhio Supreme Court · 1889