Hirshfield v. Landman
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of one of the justices’ courts, upon the ground, mainly, that the plaintiff’s attorney, whose authority to appear was disputed in the court below, had produced insufficient evidence of authority to prosecute the action. The proof introduced upon the point in question is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Woodruff, J.
It is perfectly well settled that an attorney who assumes to appear for a party in a justice’s court, must prove his authority if required to do so by the adverse party. (Timmerman v. Morrison, 14 J. R. 369; Beaver v. Van Every, 2 Cow. 429.)
It is equally well settled that a parol authority is sufficient, and that the attorney himself is a competent witness to prove such authority. (Hotchkiss v. LeRoy, 9 J. R. 142, n.; Murray v. House, 11 J. R. 464; Scott v. Elmendorf, 12 J. R. 317; Tullock v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. 256; Pixley v. Rutts, 2 Cow. 421.)
• The proper time to require the authority of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pixley v. ButtsNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Tullock v. CunninghamNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Beaver v. Van EveryNew York Supreme Court · 1823