Case Name: Waterbury et al. v. Eldridge
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-18
Citations: 5 N.Y.S. 324
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waterbury et al. v. Eldridge.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 5
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Waterbury et al. v. Eldridge.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 18, 1889.)
Attorney and Client—Compensation.
On petition to compel an attorney at law to pay over money collected by him for petitioners, and which he claims a right to retain in payment for services rendered them, where it appears that the attorney had rendered his hill for such services up to a certain date, which had heen fully paid, and the value of his services since that date can he readily ascertained, it is proper for the court to decide that value, allow the attorney to retain it, and order him to pay over the balance to petitioners, without appointing a referee, or leaving petitioners to an action at law. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Kings county.
Petition by James M. Waterbury and others to compel George 0. Eldridge, an attorney at law, to pay over to petitioners the sum of $2,500 collected by him as their attorney, and which he claimed a right to retain in payment for services rendered petitioners. It appeared that the attorney had rendered a bill for his services up to a certain date, which was fully paid, and the court found that his services since that date were reasonably worth $500, and ordered that he should pay over the remainder to petitioners. Eldridge appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.
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. Asylum, 96 N. Y. 641; In re Mertian, 29 Hun, 459; In re 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.