Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Stuart v. Trihas 188 Misc. 116

← Cases

Stuart v. Trihas

188 Misc. 116 Court Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, Decision date 1946-11-27 English

Contents

Majority

p. 116
George B. Stuart et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Stuart & Stuart, Respondents, v. Constantin J. Trihas et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Anchor Inn Sea Food Restaurant, Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
November 27, 1946.
p. 117
David P. Siegel for appellants.
Sidney Pollach for respondents.

Defendants, as clients, had the right to terminate plaintiffs’ services, as attorneys, for any reason they saw fit and thereupon plaintiffs were entitled to recover only a sum equal to the reasonable value of the work performed up to the time of discharge, determinable solely on the basis of quantum meruit (Martin v. Camp, 219 N. Y. 170 , 174; Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N. Y. 467 , 470; Matter of Tillman, 259 N. Y. 133 , 135). The refusal of defendants to permit plaintiffs to complete the services was equivalent to a discharge.

The judgment should be reversed, judgment directed for plaintiffs and case remittee! to the court below for determination of the reasonable value of plaintiffs’ services.

Eder and Hecht, JJ., concur in Per Curiam memorandum; McLaughlin, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cases cited