Felt v. Tiffany
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Special Term directing a reference of this action. The authorities are uniform that the court has, in such a case as the present, no power to refer. (Brink v. RejoubMo Fi/re Ins. Oo., 2 Sup. Ct. [T. & C.], 550; Swift v. Wells, 2 How., 79 ; Yam Rensselaer v. Jewett, 6 Hill, 373; Thomas v. Read, 6 Wend., 503; Miller v. Hooker, 2 How., 171; MoOullough v. BrodAe, 13 id., 316; Freeman v. AtlamUo Mut. Ins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Special Term directing a reference of this action. The authorities are uniform that the court has, in such a case as the present, no power to refer. (Brink v. RejoubMo Fi/re Ins. Oo., 2 Sup. Ct. [T. & C.], 550; Swift v. Wells, 2 How., 79 ; Yam Rensselaer v. Jewett, 6 Hill, 373; Thomas v. Read, 6 Wend., 503; Miller v. Hooker, 2 How., 171; MoOullough v. BrodAe, 13 id., 316; Freeman v. AtlamUo Mut. Ins. Oo., 13 Abb., 121; JDiokmson v. MitoheTl, 19 id., 286; Dittenhoeffer v. lewis, 5 Daly, 72; Foams v. Kalbfleiseh, 16 id. [N. S.], 13; Flamders v. Odell, id., 218.)
1Opinion of the Court
Dayis, P. J.:
The complaint in this action alleges services rendered by the plaintiff and his copartner, on the retainer of the defendant, in the prosecution of an action in this court, and of appeals taken therein to the General Term and to the Court of Appeals. It is, therefore, an action on contract, and, so far as that fact goes, supplies one of the iequisites which constitute a referable action. Hnder the established rules of practice, in addition to being on contract, the action must, necessarily, involve the examination of a long account, and in this respect the action seems to us to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bathgate v. . HaskinNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Tmomas v. ReabNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Dittenhoeffer v. LewisNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874