Case ID: misc_8/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court. \n      Mr. Stillman. The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fred H. Williams, Appellant, v. Charles C. Dodge, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    May, 1894.)
    An attorney of another state cannot maintain an action here for professional services rendered in such state, in the absence of plea or proof that under the law of such state a lawyer can recover for his services.
    Appeal from judgment against the plaintiff for costs, entered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant.
    Action brought by an attorney and counselor of the state of Massachusetts to recover a balance of $300, claimed to be due for professional services rendered to defendant in connection with an application for a charter for a corporation before the General Court of Massachusetts. The answer denied the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant, or any indebtedness to him whatever.
    
      Howard 7. Stillman, for appellant.
    
      J. A. Dennison, for respondent.
   The Court.

Mr. Stillman, whereabouts are your exceptions to the judge’s charge ?

Mr. Stillman.

I claim it is not necessary that we should take exceptions to the judge’s charge.

The Court.

Of course it is not absolutely necessary, but if you do not rely upon your legal exceptions you must show us that manifest injustice has been done by the jury. We have carefully examined the case, which is very short, and do not find that there is any evidence of injustice having been done to the plaintiff, such as would warrant us in setting aside the verdict which the jury rendered. Hor do we think the objection and exception which you took to the evidence which was admitted was well taken. It was clearly in rebuttal of 'testimony which you gave, and it was 'pertinent to the issue before the jury.

There being no exceptions to the charge concerning which you have argued, and there being no such manifest injustice as would warrant us in setting the verdict aside on that ground, we think this judgment should be affirmed. It was a question for the jury to determine on the facts, and we think they have made no error in the conclusion to which they arrived.

There is a grave question back of all this. You have not shown that by the laws of Massachusetts a lawyer can maintain an action for his services. In the absence of any proof on that subject the presumption is that the common-law rule prevails, and counsel fees for services rendered cannot be recovered. There is no proof on that subject, if or does the complaint contain any allegation that under the laws of Massachusetts a lawyer can recover for his services.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Bookstaver, Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.