Legal Opinion

Matter of H

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 2, 1883PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court adjudged that M. (the original attorney) was not entitled to the remittitur, and in substance, therefore, that he could have no further connection with the case as attorney. No appeal was taken, and at a subsequent term of that court the respondent, upon notice, was substituted as attorney in place of M., and authorized to collect the costs in question. From this order M. appeals. Both orders were on the ground that M. had refused to go on with the case, or hold further intercourse with his client in regard thereto. He was, therefore, so far as the case in hand was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re PaschalSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Coughlin v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1877

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Barkley v. New York Centrall & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  2. Eisenberg v. BrandNew York Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Halbert v. GibbsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  4. Reiser v. LoftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  5. Barnum v. BurlingameAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API