From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Empie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1897
17 App. Div. 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

May Term, 1897.

Andrew J. Nellis, for the appellants.

Philip Keck, for the respondent.



The order appealed from should be reversed as having been improvidently made. Conceding that the defendant was entitled to receive two days' notice in writing of the application for the appointment of a receiver, that was a requisite that he could waive.

The proceedings were proceedings in the Supreme Court, where attorneys are recognized, and where their acts in the course of the proceedings in which they are employed are binding upon their clients. The defendant was represented by an attorney, and that attorney voluntarily agreed to appear before the county judge at a time stated, for the purpose of attending to an application, which is an ordinary one in supplementary proceedings. He agreed upon the receiver to be appointed, and by his acts waived any objections that might have been raised by or in behalf of his client, to the regularity of the proceedings.

There is no claim in the moving papers that the attorney was not authorized to appear for the defendant, or that it was not a proper case for the appointment of a receiver.

It is unnecessary to cite precedents as to the authority of an attorney to appear for his client, and as to the extent to which he can bind him or waive requirements of practice in the progress of litigation or of special proceedings.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Moore v. Empie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1897
17 App. Div. 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
Case details for

Moore v. Empie

Case Details

Full title:ELEANOR MOORE, Appellant, v . PEARL EMPIE, Respondent; BORDEN D. SMITH, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 1, 1897

Citations

17 App. Div. 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
45 N.Y.S. 539

Citing Cases

Fried v. Cano

Therefore, any possible objection to the jurisdiction of this Court in this proceeding because of lack of…

Catholic Univ. of America v. Conrad

We do not think so. The attorneys of record could have appeared on the motion and waived personal service, as…