Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Orden
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was begun by service of a summons with notice, and the complaint was served on the defendant’s attorney after appearance. Before the time to serve the answer expired the defendant settled with the plaintiff personally and obtained a receipt in full of all claims, and the defendant’s attorney notified the attorneys for the plaintiff of the settlement.
Read the full summary
The action was begun by service of a summons with notice, and the complaint was served on the defendant’s attorney after appearance. Before the time to serve the answer expired the defendant settled with the plaintiff personally and obtained a receipt in full of all claims, and the defendant’s attorney notified the attorneys for the plaintiff of the settlement. After notice that they would not recognize the settlement as being prejudicial to their lien for costs and services the plaintiff’s attorneys entered judgment for the full amount demanded in the complaint on failure to plead, served a…
1Opinion of the CourtFreedman, J.
I still adhere to the views expressed by me in McCabe agt. Fogg. In reading the cases cited to the contrary it must be constantly borne in mind that the amendment of section 66, which is relied on by the plaintiff’s attorney, was made in 1879, and not before. The motion must therefore be denied, with ten dollars costs; but as the question is one which should be settled in this court the defendant, in case of appeal to the general term, may have a stay.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Taylor v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Potter v. Ajax Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
- Keeler v. KeelerNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Dienst v. McCaffreyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Whittaker v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R.The Superior Court of New York City · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.