Legal Opinion
Rutherford v. Semenza
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided January 12, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, David C., J.
The plaintiff is an attorney at law. He instituted an action against the defendant, in which he appeared as his own attorney. He recovered a judgment of $54.58.
Apparently on the theory that because he was the plaintiff in the action he could not appear as his attorney in the action, the clerk has refused to allow or tax the ten dollars statutory costs provided by section 164 of the Municipal Court Code.
Mindful of the adage suggesting the folly of the client who retains himself for his counsel — why be eager to augment the hazards of such a relationship?
Long ago this query…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kopper v. WillisNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1881
- Ex parte Stewart v. New-York C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1833
- Rathkopf v. CoussaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
3Cited by5 opinions
- Weaver v. LaubSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
- Calhoun v. CalhounSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Wells v. WhineryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Colbert v. HowardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Weaver v. LaubSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977