Haskell v. Smith — 90 N.Y.S. 353

Majority

p. 353

HASKELL v. SMITH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 10, 1904.)

Headnote

1. Principal and Agent—Contract for Services—Enforcement.

Where plaintiff was retained to obtain a settlement of defendant’s claim for damages against a railway company, and plaintiff omitted to disclose to defendant the railway company’s standing offer to settle such claim at a fixed rate, he was not entitled to recover under his contract for services.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.

Action by Robert H. Haskell Mary L. Smith. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

See 86 N. Y. Supp. 779 . '

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.

Frederick N. Van Zandt, for appellant

Robert H. Woody, for respondent.

As indicated upon a prior appeal, our opinion is that the agreement under which the plaintiff was retained to obtain a settlement of the defendant’s claim for damages against the elevated

p. 354

railway company is unenforceable, because of plaintiff’s omission to disclose the company’s standing offer to settle such cases at a fixed rate. ■If his intention was to endeavor to get more, the client should still have been permitted to judge whether it was not best for her to take what was offered without the expense of retaining counsel, whether the actual expense was to be measured by a percentage of the settlement or the value of the services.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.