Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 N.Y.S. 353

Haskell v. Smith

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1904-11-10

<p>1. Principal and Agent—Contract for Services—Enforcement.</p> <p>Where plaintiff was retained to obtain a settlement of defendant’s claim for damages against a railway company, and plaintiff omitted to disclose to defendant the railway company’s standing offer to settle such claim at a fixed rate, he was not entitled to recover under his contract for services.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1982

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1904-11-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1As indicated upon a prior appeal, our opinion is that the agreement under which the plaintiff was retained to obtain a settlement of the defendant’s claim for damages against the elevated *354railway company is unenforceable, because of plaintiff’s omission to disclose the company’s standing offer to settle such cases at a fixed rate. ■If his intention was to endeavor to get more, the client should still have been permitted to judge whether it was not best for her to take what was offered without the expense of retaining counsel, whether the actual expense was to be measured by a percentage of the settlement or the value of the services.

¶2Judgment affirmed, with costs.

/90/nys/353 · .json · Public domain