Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bogert v. Bancroft 3 Cai. 127

← Cases

Bogert v. Bancroft

3 Cai. 127 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 127
Garrit Bogert against David Bancroft.

Headnote

A notice signed by a counsel for the attorney on record, is good, if the attorney has absconded ; but generally, all notices, &c. must be in the name of the attorney in the suit.
WILLIAMS moved in this cause, on a notice signed by himself, “ for A. B.” the attorney.
W. P. Van Ness
excepted to the signature, as not being that of the attorney himself.
Williams in reply.
He is in embarrassed circumstances, and could not be found. But independent of this, the signature is sufficient. Stipulations signed by counsel alone, have been held good :[1] so his subscription to a case made at a circuit, is sufficient.

Under the circumstances of this case, we think the signature sufficient. But we do not by this mean to say, that subjoining the name of a counsel in the cause, is, in these incidental proceedings, adequate to that of the attorney. We rather think it is not.