Majority
p. 920Joseph Strauss et al., App’lts, v. Morris Seaman, Resp’t.[1] (New York Common Pleas, General Term, Filed December 3, 1888.)
Headnote
Attobney-and client—Wi-iat amounts to an assignment.A paper which purports to bean assignment of a j idgment for costs by a party to his attorney, which is not acknowledged, and unsupported by any proof of the signature, delivery or time of execution or that any thing was due the attorney, cannot have the effect of anassignment.
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the city court of New York. For statement of facts see 18 N. Y. State Rep., 942.
E. G. Kremer, for app’lts; S. F. Kneeland, for resp’t.
It will be time to determine the validity of the assignment when proof is given that one was made. The paper that purports to be an assignment, is not acknowledged, nor is (here an iota of proof of the defendant’s signature, of the delivery of the paper, or of the time of its execution. A singular feature of the case is, that the attorney to whom it is said the assignment was made, has not
p. 921
sworn that the assignment was for value, or that he ever received it, or that it was given to him at the date that apappears upon its face. He has not claimed any lien, nor has he asserted that anything is due to him. A paper unproved, unauthenticated, unvouched for, a paper that ought not to have been read until some one’s oath had lent to it at least the authority of an exhibit, is all that there is to show that any assignment was ever made. There is not, as we have already said, the slightest proof that the attorney has, or ever had a lien, or that his client ever owed him a dollar; and the attorney who might have proved these things, if they were susceptible of proof, is silent.
Upon this state of facts, no question can arise as to the validity, or legal effect of the supposed assignment. There is no assignment before the court.
The order appealed from is reversed, with costs and disbursements.