Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Misc. 776

Graut v. Langley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1901-02-15

<p>Appeal from' a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1935

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

O’Gorman, J.

¶1Accepting the defendant’s version of the disputed contract as correct, the ruling of the justice in directing a verdict for the plaintiff cannot be assailed. Where an attorney is retained for a particular case, and is discharged without cause, the measure of damage is ordinarily the stipulated compensation. Marsh v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 178; 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 426, 427. The defendant did not attempt to prove that the plaintiff would incur expense in the performance of his duties, and there was, therefore, no ground laid for claiming a deduction from the fee agreed- upon.

¶2Andrews, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.

¶3Judgment affirmed, with costs.

/34/misc/776 · .json · Public domain