Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al., Executors, etc., Respondents, v. George C. Eldridge, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-13
Citations: 1 Silv. Sup. 292
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al., Executors, etc., Respondents, v. George C. Eldridge, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 292–294

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al., Executors, etc., Respondents, v. George C. Eldridge, Appellant.
N. Y. Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
May 13, 1889.
Attorney and client. Reference.—The matter will not be sent to a referee, in a proceeding to compel the summary payment of money collected by an attorney who claims the right to retain it in payment of his services, or the petitioner turned over to his action, where it clearly appears without dispute what services the attorney has rendered since he was paid, and the value can be estimated readily and properly by the court.
This proceeding was instituted to procure an order to compel the summary payment of money collected by an attorney, which he claimed the right to retain in payment for services rendered.
Appeal by defendant.
George W. Miller, for appellant.
Hubbard Hendrickson, for respondents.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
—The decision of the court below in this matter was as liberal to the defendant as the facts warranted. There was no occasion to send the matter to a referee or turn the petitioner over to his action, as it clearly appeared without dispute what services the respondent had rendered since he was paid, and the value could be estimated readily and properly by the court.
The respondent had rendered his bill with items, and set a price upon his services, and was fully paid.
The principle upon which the court below acted was sound, and well sustained by authority. Williams v. Glenny, 16 N. Y. 389; People v. Buffalo Asylum, 96 N. Y. 641; Matter of Mertian, 29 Hun, 459; Matter of Friedman, 27 Hun, 301.
It was too late, after receipt of the money from the city of Brooklyn, to seek to open an account that had been previously settled in full.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurs.