Majority
Headnote
1. Actions—Death of Attorney—Stay of Proceedings—Referee—Delivery of Report.This action was brought by the plaintiff, a fire insurance corporation, to recover of the defendants, who were its agents in Chicago, 111., premiums upon policies of insurance which it is alleged had been withheld. Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, an order was entered November 9, 1900, referring the issues to a referee for trial. The action was tried and finally submitted to the referee April 8, 1901. The firm of Porter & Porter represented the defendant Cummings, who alone answered. Judge Porter, the senior member of that firm, died May 21, 1901; and his copartner was at that time in an asylum, mentally incompetent, and in the month of June following was adjudged to be of unsound mind. On the 25th of May the plaintiff’s attorney, by notice in writing, advised the defendant Cummings of the death of Judge Porter, and of the disability of the other member of the law firm, and notified the defendant to obtain another attorney to act in his behalf in this action. Walts & Pitcher, by order of the special term entered on the 8th day of July, 1901, were substituted as the attorneys for the defendants, at their request. On the 7th day of June the referee delivered his report to the attorneys for the plaintiff, directing that judgment be entered in its favor for the sum of $1,106.97. Nothing was done pursuant to this report until after the substitution of the attorneys for the defendants, and judgment was thereupon entered July 18, 1901.
The contention of the respondents is that upon the death of Judge Porter, as his partner was mentally incompetent, all proceedings were stayed by section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the delivery of the report was in violation of this section. The section reads as follows;
“If an attorney dies, is removed or suspended, or otherwise becomes disabled to act, at any time before judgment in an action, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action, against the party for whom he appeared, until thirty days after notice to appoint another attorney, has been given to that party, either personally, or in such other manner as the court directs.”
If we are in error in the foregoing conclusion, we believe it may well be said that the actual delivery of the report was after the lapse of 30 days, during which the proceedings were stayed. It was so treated by the attorney for the plaintiff, and the delivery, even after the 60 days given the referee to make and render his report, would be effective against the party who had not sought to terminate the reference.
At best, if there was a technical disregard of section 65 of the Code in delivering the report, it was a mere irregularity, and 10 days elapsed after attorneys for the defendants had been substituted upon their request before judgment was entered. These attorneys must have known that 60 days had long expired since the final submission of the case, and they should have proceeded at once, if they expected to end the reference or impeach the delivery of the report. They cannot be permitted to remain quiet until after the entry of the judgment, and then claim that all the proceedings were annulled by the action of the referee in delivering the report. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and the disbursements of this appeal, and the motion to set aside the report, judgment, stipulation, and order of reference denied, with $10 costs.
Cases cited
- Little v. Lynch 99 N. Y. 112 p. 130
- Commercial Bank v. Foltz 13 App. Div. 603 p. 130