From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graut v. Langley

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 776 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)

Opinion

February, 1901.

James J. Conway, for appellant.

William Tharp, for respondent.


Accepting 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.

ANDREWS, P.J., and BLANCHARD, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Graut v. Langley

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 776 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)
Case details for

Graut v. Langley

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS J. GRAUT, Respondent, v . JOHN LANGLEY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1901

Citations

34 Misc. 776 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)

Citing Cases

Matter of Montgomery

Where the agreed work has been substantially performed, or has been in effect regarded by the client as…