Case ID: nys_68/html/0820-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’GORMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRANT v. LANGLEY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 25, 1901.)
    Attorney and Client—Discharge—Action—Measure of Damage—Direction of Verdict.
    Where an attorney retained in a particular case for an agreed fee was discharged without cause, and in an action to recover the defendant did not show that plaintiff would have incurred expense in the performance of his duties, it was proper to direct a verdict for plaintiff for the stipulated sum.
    
      Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eleventh district.
    Action by Louis J. Grant against John Langley. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before ANDREWS, P. J., and O’GORMAN and BLANCHARD, JÍ.
    James J. Conway, for appellant.
    William Tharp, for respondent.
   O’GORMAN, J.

Accepting defendant’s version of the disputed contract as correct, the ruling of the justice in directing a verdict for the plaintiff cannot be assailed. Where an attorney is retained for a particular case, and is discharged without cause, the measure of damage is ordinarily the stipulated compensation. Marsh v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. Dec. 178; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 426, 427. The defendant did not attempt to prove that the plaintiff would incur expense in the performance of his duties, and there was, therefore, no ground laid for claiming a deduction from the fee agreed upon.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.