Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Rob. 609

Hess v. Joseph

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided December 15, 1867

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1867-12-15

This is an application to compel the attorney of the defendant to pay the plaintiff a certain sum of money deposited by the defendant with his attorney. The application comes up on an order to show cause, without any name signed to it as attorney. The order to show cause, and the affidavits on which it is founded are, however, indorsed “ --att’ys for plff.” All the papers are entitled in the action. The case as shown by the moving papers is this.

Decided 1867-12-15

Jones, J.

¶1This application cannot be granted: First. The papers are wrongly entitled in this action. The application is dehors the action, and is in no sense a step or proceeding in the action.

¶2Second. It appears to be made on behalf of the plaintiff, between whom and the defendant’s attorney the relation .of attorney and client does not exist. . A summary application to compel an attorney to pay over money received in his professional capacity is only entertained on motion of the client. This is a privilege given to clients for their protection against such exactions and overreachings, which the attorney by reason of the confidence placed in him by his client might resort to. But this privilege and extraordinary remedy is not extended either to outside parties or to assignees of clients.

¶3Motion denied, without costs.

/7/rob/609 · .json · Public domain