From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VAN DER BEEK v. THOMASON

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1906
50 Misc. 524 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)

Opinion

May, 1906.

Frank Verner Johnson, for appellant.

Willoughby B. Dobbs, for respondent.


Plaintiff sued to recover damages resulting from an injury alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Defendant set up on the trial a general release which plaintiff testified he had executed voluntarily and also that he had received from the defendant the sum therein named. Plaintiff's counsel objected that the release was signed without his consent, and it would seem that the learned justice refused to dismiss the complaint and allowed the case to go to the jury for this reason. It is well settled that a plaintiff has a right to settle his action at any time, whether his attorney consents or not. It has also been held that the Municipal Court has no power to enforce an attorney's lien, if indeed such a lien exists in that court. People ex rel. Jaffe v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Misc. 456.

It is apparent for these reasons that the complaint should have been dismissed.

GILDERSLEEVE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

VAN DER BEEK v. THOMASON

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1906
50 Misc. 524 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
Case details for

VAN DER BEEK v. THOMASON

Case Details

Full title:HARRY B. VAN DER BEEK, Respondent, v . SAMUEL THOMASON, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1906

Citations

50 Misc. 524 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
99 N.Y.S. 538

Citing Cases

Tynan v. Mart

Although it has several times been held that an attorney's lien could not be enforced in the Municipal Court…