Ousterhout v. Day
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiff, as sheriff, to recover his fees for serving writs of cap. ad. resp. issued by T. P, Grosvenor, attorney for the defendant. The plaintiff served several writs, in which the present defendant was plaintiff and Grosvenor the attorney.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiff, as sheriff, to recover his fees for serving writs of cap. ad. resp. issued by T. P, Grosvenor, attorney for the defendant. The plaintiff served several writs, in which the present defendant was plaintiff and Grosvenor the attorney. The plaintiff kept a book in- which he charged his fees to the attorneys who issued the process; and in the present case he charged, his fees to Grosvenor, to whom he afterwards presented a bill of the fees, and demanded payment. Grosvenor neglecting to pay the bill, the plaintiff brought an action against him, and…
1Per curiam
The plaintiff, as sheriff, was entitled to look to the attorney for his fees; and, in this case, he has elected to look to him exclusively, and has given to him the whole credit. Admitting, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled, in the first instance, to look to the client, he has here waived that right, and resorted to the attorney. Under the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to conclude the plaintiff by his election. The principle stated in the cases cited by the defendant’s counsel is applicable There must be judgment for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Eastman v. Coos BankSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817
- Jewelry Realty Corp. v. Newport Associates, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1970
- Gadski-Tauscher v. GraffNew York Supreme Court · 1904
- Berhaus v. GeorgeannaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1887
- Gray v. Journal of Finance Publishing Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.