Case ID: nys_67/html/1138-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LENNEY et al., Respondents, v. SALOMON, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 2, 1901.)
    Action by James C. Lenney and another against Estelle S. Salomon. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Van Scliaick, Norton & Quimby, for appellant.
    S. Callaghan, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Exhibits A and B do not constitute a contract between plaintiffs and defendant on which plaintiffs can sue. The attorneys for the defendant in the action of Heisman v. Salomon had no authority to bind the defendant to pay the attorneys for the plaintiff in the action last above mentioned their fees. Moreover, even if the defendant’s attorney had the implied authority to make the contract set up in the complaint herein, it was no more than a contract to pay the sum of $150 and costs ; that is, taxable costs, or costs to be taxed. The evidence shows that costs never have been taxed. This case is to be distinguished from the case of Pilkington v. Railroad Co., 49 App. Div. 22, 63 N. Y. Supp. 211, in which the agreement was entitled in the action and signed on behalf of the defendant by the individual who made the settlement, and is an express agreement of the defendant. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.