Nordlinger v. De Mier
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. In an action by Jacob Hordlinger and others against Joaquin de Mier and •others, De Mier was not served, and moved to set aside an alleged unauthorized appearance by attorney. He was denied this relief, but was allowed to •substitute attorneys. Being dissatisfied therewith, he appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The defendants were sued as general partners. The summons was served upon Parraga only. He sent the summons to Messrs. Arnoux, Ritch & Woodford, responsible attorneys of this court, who appeared for all the defendants. They so appeared without authority from either De Mier or De Castro, but they acted in entire good faith, believing that Parraga was authorized to retain them for all the defendants. Parraga’s •authority is now denied, and the defendants all insist that the partnership was special; that Parraga was the only general partner, while De Mier and De Castro were but special partners.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Borden v. FitchNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Ferguson v. . CrawfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Starbuck v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Kerr v. . KerrNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Denton v. NoyesNew York Supreme Court · 1810
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re the Judicial Settlement of Accounts, Estate of FordNew York Surrogate's Court · 1916
- Hollins v. St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1890
- Vilas v. Plattsburgh & Montreal RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Myers v. PrefontaineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- In re Great Northern Construction Co.New York Supreme Court · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.