Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Jones & S. 366

Evans v. Harris

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1881-06-06

<p>Attorney—when not precluded under General Buie 5, from executing undertaking.</p> <p>An attorney, who has not practiced as such for some time, e. g., for one year, and is engaged in another vocation, under General Rule 5, is not precluded, by the fact that he is an attorney, from executing an undertaking in an action.</p>

Decided 1881-06-06

By the Court.—Sedgwick, Ch. J.

¶1Rule 5 of the General Rules provides that in no case “ shall an attorney or counselor be surety on any undertaking or bond required by law.” So far as bail was concerned, this was declaratory of a long existing rule. The existing rule was not, however, applied to the case of attorneys who had retired from practice for a long time (The King v. Inney, 2 East, 182; Bill v. Gate, 1 Taunt. 162). The reason of the prohibition did not apply to such a case. It was not intended to apply a rule of a larger scope to undertakings. In this case it appeared that the surety, although at one time an attorney, had altogether left practice for some time, and was engaged in another vocation. The time was more than a year. There is no occasion to disturb the judgment of the court below, that the time, under the circumstances, was sufficient to bring the case within the limitation of the rule above referred to.

¶2Order affirmed with $10 costs, and disbursements to be taxed.

¶3Freedman, J., concurred.

/15/joness/366 · .json · Public domain