Legal Opinion

Dietz v. McCallum

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided February 15, 1873PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion by defendants for discontinuance of action, or for leave to serve a supplemental answer showing settlement,

1Opinion of the CourtFreedman, J.

Although, as a general rule, an attorney has no lien for costs as against the adverse party until a judgment is entered, or at least a verdict obtained, and for that reason the parties are at liberty, to settle the suit between themselves before verdict or judgment, yet where such settlement is privately effected with the design of preventing an attorney from obtaining his costs, the court will, notwithstanding the settlement, allow the attorney to go #n and collect the costs in the action, that he may thereby secure himself. Where there is collusion, it can make no difference whether the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Jones v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1856

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Crotty v. McKenzieThe Superior Court of New York City · 1877
  2. Gallison & Hobron Co. v. RawakCity of New York Municipal Court · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API