Hyperlawhypertext legal database Graves v. Graham 44 N.Y.S. 473

← Cases

Graves v. Graham

44 N.Y.S. 473 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1896-12-12 English

Delivered by O’DWYER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 473
(18 Misc. Rep. 609.)
GRAVES v. GRAHAM.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December 12, 1896.)

Headnote

Attorney and Client—Right of Attorney to Withdraw from Case.
An attorney cannot, after obtaining an order vacating service of summons, withdraw, so as to prevent an appeal from the order, though he appeared specially solely for the purpose of obtaining such order.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Thomas Graves against Robert J. Graham. From an order granting plaintiffs motion to compel Jones & Govin to accept notice of trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS and O’DWYER, JJ.
Edward K. Jones, for appellant.
H. E. Lee and O. P. Buell, for respondent.

Admitting the appellant’s proposition that the attorneys appeared specially for the purpose of obtaining an order vacating the service of the summons, and that, the application having been decided, they have no authority to act further, we are of the opinion that the contention of these attorneys, that after obtaining this order in their favor they can withdraw, so as to prevent an appeal from the order, would lead to thq most palpable injustice. If this practice should be upheld, they can forever prevent an appeal from any order they have obtained or can obtain in this case, for they can appear especially in each instance, obtain an order, and then withdraw. Although it is sometimes said that the retainer of an attorney ends with the entry of a judgment, yet it is well settled that, after judgment, the attorney’s relations to his client continue in the matter for many purposes. He can issue execution, give satisfaction of the judgment, and is the proper party upon whom the defeated party should serve notice of appeal. Likewise, where attorneys appear for a certain purpose, as it is claimed in this case, to obtain an order, their relation to their client still exists for the purposes of an appeal from that order.

Order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

FITZSIMONS, J., concurs.