Majority
p. 757Cruikshank v. Goodwin et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. November 18, 1892.) Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien and Lawrence, JJ.
Headnote
Attorney and Client—Extent or Retainer.An attorney’s authority to appear for Ms client ceases after the entry of final judgment, except that he may take the necessary steps to collect the judgment.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Augustus Cruikshank, as trustee for the estate of Benjamin Lord, deceased, and Mary Hanson, against Lorenzo Goodwin and others, in which A. Edward Woodruff, an attorney for certain defendants, moves to compel Young & Ver Planck, attorneys, to show their authority to appear for Mary A. Cobb and other defendants, for whom Woodruff appeared before judgment, and for whom he claims to be attorney on the record. His motion being overruled, he appeals. Affirmed.
A. Edward Woodruff, for appellant, and individually. Young & Ver Planck, (Henry A. Prince, of counsel,) for respondents.
The authority of an attorney to appear for his client ceases after the entry of the final judgment in the action, with the exception that he may issue execution and take the necessary steps to collect the judgment, and, under the provisions of the old Revised Statutes and the Code of Civil Procedure, may, in the absence of a revocation of his authority, execute a satisfaction of the judgment within two years after its entry. Lusk v. Hastings, 1 Hill, 659 ; Walradt v. Maynard, 3 Barb. 584 ; Egan v. Rooney, 38 How. Pr. 121 . We. are of the opinion that the order below was right, and it is therefore affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
Cases cited
- Walradt v. Maynard 3 Barb. 584 p. 757
- Egan v. Rooney 38 How. Pr. 121 p. 757