W. S. F. Tatum v. Maloney
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Concurrence
Proskauer, J. (concurring in result).
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and order appealed from, for the following reasons:
First. The defendants having retained the Mississippi attorneys were bound by the action of these attorneys in the conduct of the litigation, even though they exceeded the limitation placed upon their authority. (Palen v. Starr, 7 Hun, 422; Matter of Maxwell, 66 id. 151; Butcher v. Quinn, 86 App. Div. 391; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y. 253, 258, 261.) ' The situation in this respect is entirely different from the one which exists in cases like Famobrosis Society…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Forsyth v. HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Ferguson v. . CrawfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Chicago Life Insurance v. CherrySupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Western Life Indemnity Co. of Ill. v. RuppSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Famobrosis Society v. Royal Benefit SocietyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.