Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co.

12 Citing cases

  1. Clark v. Crown Drug Co.

    236 Mo. App. 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 1940)   Cited 1 times

    (2) Having neither pleaded nor proved any damage, plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 266 N.Y.S. 184, and cases there cited; Corchine v. Henderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S.W.2d 766; State v. Public Theater Corp. of N.Y. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S.W.2d 248; York v. Yzaguairre (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S.W. 563; Motor Car Dealers Assn. of Seattle v. Fred S. Haines Co. (Wash.), 222 P. 611; Long v. Southern Express Co. (C.C.A.), 202 F. 462. (3) The telephone sales in question were made at defendant's store and were proper under defendant's license and the liquor control act. State v. Rosenberger, 212 Mo. 648, 111 S.W. 509; State v. Swift Co., 273 Mo. 462, 200 S.W. 1066. (a) Intention of parties governs as to place and time of sale.

  2. In re Dodd

    42 A.2d 36 (Conn. 1945)   Cited 13 times

    We recognize that general statements have been made to the effect that attorneys, as such, cannot appeal from a judgment admitting an applicant as an attorney. See Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 266 N.Y.S. 184, 189, 148 Misc. 529; Rosencranz v. Tidrington, 199 Ind. 140, 155 N.E. 705; 1 Thornton, Attorneys at Law, 58; 6 C.J. 579, 34; 7 C. J. S. 719, note 55. The authorities do not show that the personal notice which is the basis of our decision was required. What we have already said disposes of the claim that Mr. Shields is not aggrieved.

  3. State v. Cozad

    16 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 1944)   Cited 10 times

    " This view finds support in the other holdings of the courts. Hulbert v. Mybeck, 220 Ind. 530, 44 N.E.2d 830; Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 148 Misc. 529, 266 N.Y.S. 184; In re Casebier, 129 Kan. 853, 284 P. 611; In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676, 266 P. 665; Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293; and Petition for Integration of Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195, 12 N.W.2d 515. [4-7] That the right to practice a profession is highly prized by the members of the favored class requires no demonstration.

  4. Clark v. Crown Drug Co.

    152 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. 1941)   Cited 11 times

    (2) Having neither pleaded nor proved any damage, plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. Wollitzer v. Natl. Title Guar. Co., 266 N.Y.S. 184; Corchine v. Henderson, 70 S.W.2d 766; State v. Publix Theater Corp. of N.Y., 37 S.W.2d 248; York v. Yzaguairre, 71 S.W. 563; Motor Car Dealers Assn. of Seattle v. Haines Co., 222 P. 611; Long v. So. Express Co., 202 F. 462. (3) The telephone sales in question were made at defendant's store and were proper under defendant's license and the Liquor Control Act. State v. Rosenberger, 212 Mo. 648, 111 S.W. 509; State v. Swift Co., 273 Mo. 462, 200 S.W. 1066. (a) Intention of parties governs as to place and time of sale. Turner-Looker Liquor Co. v. Hindman, 232 S.W. 1076; Consolidated Flour Mills Co. v. Farmers' Elevator Co., 247 S.W. 480; Keen v. Rush, 19 S.W.2d 25. (b) Upon the record in this case, when order was placed and accepted over telephone, sale was completed and title passed, even though defendant, as vendor, had vendor's lien to secure payment of purchase price so long as defendant retained possession of the property.

  5. N.H. Board c. v. Company

    9 A.2d 513 (N.H. 1939)   Cited 11 times

    Unger v. Corporation, 114 N. J. Eq. 68; Sloan v. Mitchell, 113 W. Va. 506. Or if criminal proceedings are inadequate. Dworken v. Association, 38 Oh. App. 265; Land Title c. Co. v. Dworken, 129 Oh. St. 23; Goodman v. Company, 28 Oh. N. P. (N.S.) 272. Or the unlawful intrusion is a series of acts from which the common-law remedies afford inadequate protection. Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582 . Or if the unlawful practice is regarded as a public nuisance injuring his property right. Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39. Or if he is in a position to show damage (an allegation that plaintiff's practice has "greatly suffered" being bad on demurrer). Wollitzer v. Company, 266 N. Y. S. 184. We see no reason to follow State Bar v. Association, 170 Okla. 246, where there was statutory authority for the plaintiff's proceeding.

  6. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones

    344 Mo. 932 (Mo. 1939)   Cited 100 times
    In Liberty Mutual, a proceeding brought by the Missouri Bar Association to prevent the unlawful practice of law by so-called lay adjusters, the court announced a number of guidelines.

    (e) The settlement and adjustment of casualty claims is the practice of law. (f) The preparation of releases, covenants not to sue and other contracts or agreements designed to compromise and settle claims and to bar further liability thereon, constitutes the practice of law. 16 Mich. State Bar Journal 123, Brand 795-796; People v. Title Guar. Trust Co., 227 N.Y. 366, 125 N.E. 666, Brand 58; In re Pace, 170 A.D. 818, 156 N.Y.S. 641. Brand 33; Meisel Co. v. Natl. Jewelers' Board of Trade, 152 N.Y.S. 913, Brand 28; People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334, 125 N.E. 671, Brand 53; Paul v. Stanley, 168 Wn. 371, 12 P.2d 401, Brand 170; In re Gore, Brand 472; Clark v. Austin, 101 S.W.2d 977, Brand 623; In re Matthews, 62 P.2d 578, Brand 540; State ex inf. v. Dudley Co., 102 S.W.2d 895, Brand 653; Wollitzer v. Natl. Title Guar. Co., 148 Misc. 529, 266 N.Y.S. 184, Brand 229; Brand 59-66; People v. Title Guaranty Trust Co., 181 N.Y.S. 52; State ex rel. Wright v. Barlow, 131 Neb. 294, 268 N.W. 95, Brand 523. W. Marvin Woodall, Roderick Beddow, George R. Stuart, Jr., Harold M. Cook, Horace C. Wilkinson and A.A. Carmichael, Attorney General of Alabama, for Alabama State Bar Association, and Birmingham Bar Association.

  7. Wayne v. Murphey-Favre Co.

    59 P.2d 721 (Idaho 1936)   Cited 2 times

    A private corporation may employ counsel in any matter where it has a direct primary interest. ( People v. Title Guarantee Trust Co., 191 App. Div. 165, 181 N.Y. Supp. 52; affirmed 230 N.Y. 578, 130 N.E. 901; Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 148 Misc. 529, 266 N.Y. Supp. 184; Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. Maloney, 165 N.Y. Supp. 280; In re Kelsey, 186 App. Div. 95, 173 N.Y. Supp. 860; Hanson v. Federal Land Bank, (S.D.) 262 N.W. 228; Land Title Abstract Trust Co. v. Dworken et al., 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (point 5, syl. by the court).) GIVENS, C.J.

  8. Duncan Hill v. Dept of State

    62 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)   Cited 13 times
    In Matter of Duncan Hill Realty, Inc. v. Department of State, 62 A.D.2d 690 (4th Dept), app dismised, 45 N.Y.2d 821 (1978), the court upheld the Department's determination that a broker who was not a licensed attorney demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetence in violation of Real Property Law ยง 441-c, finding that when he prepared documents that included detailed mortgage terms he had devised, he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

    A consideration of this question must start with the recognition that from time immemorial real estate brokers and agents have drafted "simple" contracts between their clients as a part of their professional work, in expediting the progress of their business and the affairs of their clients (see People v Title Guar. Trust Co., 227 N.Y. 366, 374-375). As long as real estate brokers and agents have not held themselves out to be attorneys at law, have confined their actions to serving their clients in relation to the specific transaction (such as drawing a contract of sale) in which the broker has a financial interest for payment of his services, and have made no charge for these incidental services, such acts have been held by our courts to be proper and not to constitute the unlawful practice of law (People v Title Guar. Trust Co., supra; People v Title Guar. Trust Co., 191 App. Div. 165, affd 230 N.Y. 578; Wollitzer v Title Guar. Trust Co., 148 Misc. 529, affd 241 App. Div. 757). It is to be noted, however, that a real estate broker serves either the seller or the buyer, usually the former, and not both; and so the reference in the cases to brokers "serving their clients" in relation to a specific transaction rests on the erroneous assumption that brokers represent both the seller and buyer in the same transaction (see Matter of Grant Realty v Cuomo, 58 A.D.2d 251, 255, supra). The New York rule granting to real estate brokers and agents the privilege to prepare purchase offer contracts in real estate transactions is followed in many other States (State ex rel. Indiana Bar Assn. v Indiana Real Estate Assn., 244 Ind. 214; State ex rel. Reynolds v Dinger, 14 Wis.2d 193; Arkansas Bar Assn. v Block, 230 Ark. 430, cert den 361 U.S. 836; Conway-Bogue v Bar Assn., 135 Col 398, 416; Ingham County Bar Assn. v Neller Co., 342 Mich. 214; Hulse v Criger, 363 Mo 26; Keyes Co. v Dade County Bar Assn., 46 So.2d 605 [Fla]; Commonwealth of Virginia v

  9. DEL. OPTOMETRIC ASSN., ET AL. v. SHERWOOD, ET AL

    35 Del. Ch. 507 (Del. Ch. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    While the privileges and duties of the clergyman, the doctor, and the lawyer have their roots deep in history, those of optometrists are purely statutory, Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corp., 170 Md. 661, 185 A. 562, Georgia State Board, etc. v. Friedman's Jewelers, 183 Ga. 669, 189 S.E. 238. Whatever may be decided in Delaware as to the common law property right of those in the so-called learned professions, plaintiffs' equitable rights, if any, lie on a narrower basis, namely the provisions of Chapter 21 of Title 24, Del. C. and that chapter contains nothing which authorizes licensed optometrists to apply for injunctive relief against the activities of non-licensed competitors. Lawyers are generally considered to be entitled to injunctive relief against unauthorized practice of law, however, in the case of Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 148 Misc. 529, 266 N.Y.S. 184, affirmed 241 App. Div. 757, 270 N YS. 978, it was held that attorneys in the absence of a showing of special injury or damage have no common law right to ask that illegal practice be enjoined. Apparently by statute alternative remedies including injunctive relief after request of the Attorney General are now available to lawyers against unauthorized practice. In re New York County Lawyers Ass'n, 273 App. Div. 524, 78N.Y.S.2d 209, 9 A.L.R.2d 787.

  10. Smith v. IllInois Adjustment Finance Co.

    326 Ill. App. 654 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)   Cited 13 times
    In Smith v. Illinois Adjustment Finance Co., 326 Ill. App. 654, 63 N.E.2d 264 (1945) (Smith), the court considered the question of standing to bring a cause of action for the unauthorized practice of law and found that "an attorney is the proper party to bring the suit, and that an injunction is the proper remedy, for the unauthorized practice of law."

    The next point raised is, that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. They cite three cases as sustaining this contention, namely, People v. Universal Chiropractors' Ass'n, 302 Ill. 228, Seager v. Kankakee County, 102 Ill. 669 and Wollitzer v. National Title Guaranty Co., 148 Misc. 529, 226 N Y S. 184. It is claimed by the appellees that because the corporation could be subjected to a criminal prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law, and that quo warranto proceedings could be filed against the defendants, the plaintiff does have a complete and adequate remedy at law to stop the unauthorized practice of law by the appellees. The decisions of the courts do not sustain this contention.