Barnum v. Burlingame
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the petitioner, Edward H. Barnum, from an order of thé Special Term, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on .the 19th day of August, 1912.
1Opinion of the Court
Jenks, P. J.:
The court could not secure payment to the respondent for his legal services by the application of any remedy that depends upon the relation of attorney and client, inasmuch as the attorney terminated that relation without sufficient cause. (Matter of H-, 93 N. Y. 381; Matter of Dunn, 205 id. 398.) Such termination worked relegation to ordinary remedie:’- The order is modified by striking out the provision for payment by the client, and as thus modified it is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order modified by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Matter of HNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riley v. GustingerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970