Case ID: ny-st-rep_16/html/1009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS J. POPE et al, App’lts, v. GEORGE A. PORTER et al., Resp’ts. SAMUEL A. BRIGGS as Assignee, v. GEORGE A. PORTER et al.
    
    Judgment—When not set aside.
    Appeal from order denying motion made upon the petition of Samuel Briggs as assignee to set aside an order substituting the assignee as plaintiff in the action.
    
      Thomas Darlington, for app’lts; Tracy, McLellan & Ayling, for resp’ts.
   Van Brunt, P J.

Upon an examination of the papers upon which this motion is founded and the answering affidavits it seems to be clear that no error was made by the court below in denying the motion. There is to be found ample evidence in the papers consisting of conceded facts to show that the parties acting as attorneys in these various proceedings, both before and on the trial, acted as the attorneys oí the assignee and had authority so to do. There seems to be no reasonable doubt but what the assignee was present at the trial and was aware of what took place upon such trial; and there is no doubt but what the attorneys assumed to act for the assignee upon such trial, and had done so in other proceedings in which the assignee was interested.

There seems to be no ground to hold, under the circumstances of this case, that the attorneys acted for the assignee without any authority and that, therefore, their action was void. The whole tenor of the proceedings is at war with any such conclusion, and no result can be arrived at upon a consideration of the evidence except that these attorneys were acting for the assignee and that the assignee so understood the situation.

Under these circumstances there would be no equity whatever in granting the motion for the purpose of relieving the assignee from the judgment in this case, which was being prosecuted by him for the benefit of the assigned estate, and, as has already been intimated, we think the order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Brady and Bartlett, JJ., concur