Case Name: Samuel Ellor, Individually and as Surviving Member of the Firm of Ellor Bros. & Hall, Plaintiff, and H. D. Parmelee & Co., Appellant, Suing in their Own Behalf and That of Other Members of the Associated Hat Manufacturers, v. Associated Hat Manufacturers et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1919-04-08
Citations: 226 N.Y. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Ellor, Individually and as Surviving Member of the Firm of Ellor Bros. & Hall, Plaintiff, and H. D. Parmelee & Co., Appellant, Suing in their Own Behalf and That of Other Members of the Associated Hat Manufacturers, v. Associated Hat Manufacturers et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 226
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Samuel Ellor, Individually and as Surviving Member of the Firm of Ellor Bros. & Hall, Plaintiff, and H. D. Parmelee & Co., Appellant, Suing in their Own Behalf and That of Other Members of the Associated Hat Manufacturers, v. Associated Hat Manufacturers et al., Respondents.
Ellor v. Associated Hat Manufacturers, 177 App. Div. 908, affirmed.
(Submitted March 11, 1919;
decided April 8, 1919.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 4, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. The complaint alleged that the Associated Hat Manufacturers and the other defendants other than Milton Dammann, who is an attorney at law, improperly authorized, out of a settlement of certain auctions in which Dammann appeared as attorney for the association, a fee of $26,575 out of the total settlement of $32,200; that this fee was far in excess of the reasonable value of services of Dammann and that Dammann had agreed that his services and those of the attorneys employed by him should not exceed one-third of the moneys collected. • The complaint asked that Dammann return the alleged excess portion of the fee and that the members of the association should be compelled to account for the alleged excessive payment.
Arnold Lichtig for appellant.
William P. Maloney, Henry A. Stickney and E. Crosby Kindleberger for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs to each of the respondents who appeared by separate counsel and filed separate briefs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.