Case ID: ny_217/html/0641-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John F. Schreyer, Appellant, v. James A. Deering, Respondent.
    
      Schreyer v. Deering, 160 App. Div. 888, affirmed.
    (Argued January 24, 1916;
    decided February 22, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 8, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee. Mr. A. Oldrin Salter, a lawyer, had for a client Mr. John Schreyer, who had owned some valuable property lying within the lines of the extension of Lexington avenue from Ninety-seventh street to One Hundred and Second street, in the city of New York, which the city had taken, and for which an award had been made of one dollar for each parcel, or a total of four dollars only. Mr. Salter, believing that his client had been aggrieved by this, sought, with the consent of his client, the services of Mr. Deering. Whereupon Mr. Deering prepared a retainer to he executed by Mr. John Schreyer, and sent it to Mr. Salter for that purpose. The retainer contained an agreement “ To pay to the said Deering a sum equal to fifty per cent. (50$) of whatever sum shall be allowed, recovered or confirmed on account of said loss and damage, it being agreed and understood that in case of no recovery or allowance the said Deering shall receive nothing.” The letter transmitting this proposed retainer • to Mr. Deering provided for a division of fees with Mr. Salter as follows: “And in the Schreyer-Lexington Avenue matter that you shall receive ten out of the fifty per cent, coming to me, or one-fifth of my fees.” The construction of this agreement for the division of fees presents the main legal proposition upon this appeal.
    
      Alexander Thain, Louis Wendel, Jr., and Robert J. Robeson for appellant.
    
      James R. Deering for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.