Fisher v. Bishop
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment, entered upon the trial of this action, at a Special Term held in Delaware county. The action was brought in February, 1881, to set aside a bond and mortgage given July 27, 1874, by the plaintiff and his wife to the defendants, upon the ground that the same were obtained by fraud' and duress. Hpon the first trial they were set aside for want of consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment, entered upon the trial of this action, at a Special Term held in Delaware county. The action was brought in February, 1881, to set aside a bond and mortgage given July 27, 1874, by the plaintiff and his wife to the defendants, upon the ground that the same were obtained by fraud' and duress. Hpon the first trial they were set aside for want of consideration. But the General Term reversed the judgment entered upon the decision at the first trial, on the ground that the issue as to a want of consideration was not properly before the trial court, the opinion at General…
1Opinion of the Court
Hardin, P. J. :
Wattles had assumed to act as a legal adviser of the plaintiff; he had received from him the same confidence which exists ordinarily between client and counsel, and he therefore should be held to the same accountability for his acts, threats and conduct in respect to the transaction out of which the mortgage and bond arose, that would be required of an attorney. This rule has the sanction of several adjudicated cases. (Freelove v. Cole, 41 Barb., 318; affirmed, 41 N. Y., 619.)
A confidential relation existing between parties requires the greatest care, and transactions between…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ball v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Eadie v. . SlimmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Post v. . MasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Howell v. RansomNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Evans v. EllisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.