Burghart v. Gardner
New York Supreme Court
This case came before the court upon a writ of error to the Onondaga common pleas. The defendants in error were attorneys, and sued the plaintiffs in error before a justice of the peace, for their services as attorneys, in prosecuting a writ of certiorari for them. The plaintiffs before the justice proved by the Hon. Daniel Pratt, the late first judge of Onondaga county courts, the rendition of the services in the court of common pleas, by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court upon a writ of error to the Onondaga common pleas. The defendants in error were attorneys, and sued the plaintiffs in error before a justice of the peace, for their services as attorneys, in prosecuting a writ of certiorari for them. The plaintiffs before the justice proved by the Hon. Daniel Pratt, the late first judge of Onondaga county courts, the rendition of the services in the court of common pleas, by the plaintiffs. The papers in the certiorari suit were also produced from the clerk’s office, and verified as being the original papers in the suit. One of…
1Opinion of the Court
*65By the Court,
Gridley, J.
We would be glad to uphold this judgment if we could, without a violation of the rules of evidence. But we are constrained to say that there is no legal evidence of a retainer, and without such evidence it is impossible to sustain the judgment. (9 John. Rep. 142.) The testimony, of Judge Pratt, and the production of the original papers in the cause, only prove the performance of the services by the plaintiffs below. It is argued on behalf of the defendants in error, that a retainer will be inferred from the beneficial nature of the services; and we are referred to 14…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oatfield v. WaringNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Hotchkiss v. Le RoyNew York Supreme Court · 1812