Case Name: Hotchkiss against Le Roy and Rodgers
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1812-05
Citations: 9 Johns. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hotchkiss against Le Roy and Rodgers.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 142–142

Head Matter:
Hotchkiss against Le Roy and Rodgers.
NEW YORK,
May, 1812.
In an action brought before a justice of the peace, to recover a a''suit Tifthe mon'p?eas,°the only; elenco ment, was that of the opposite said^that the plaintiff acted no ott/mn(»Trfnn th<fdefendant, Th^was'held not to be sufficient evidence of the plain-been employed by the defendant.
Though it may not be requisiteioprove employmeutof an attorney, jet some recognition of party, in the progress of the suit, is necessary to be shown, to make him for the costs.
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
Le Roy and Rodgers, who were partners, as attorneys, brought an action against Hotchkiss, before the justice, to recover the amount of a bill of costs, in a certain suit commenced by them, for the defendant, in the court of common pleas of Broome county- The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. The plaintiffs proved, by the attorney for the defendant, in the cause in the court of common pleas, that Le Roy and Rodgers acted as attorBeys. for the plaintiff; and that he considered them as sych, in the progress of the suit; but there was no other proof that the plaintiffs were employed by Hotchkiss. According to the statute, was proved. The service of a bill of costs, It was signed, however, by Rodgers, in the name of the plaintiffs, after the dissolution of their partnership. A motion for a nonsuit was made, which was, overruled, and the cause submitted to the jury, who found a verdiet for the plaintiffs, for the amount of their bill of costs.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is no evidence whatever that the plain- , . tins below were 'employed by the defendant to prosecute the suit, in which the bill of costs, for which this suit was brought, arose, ft js hardly to be presumed, that the suit was commenced and. Jr, prosecuted without his directions, but some evidence ought to have been offered to the jury, to authorize them to draw such a conclusion. Although it might be difficult, and, perhaps, impossiftje jn most cases, to prove the original employment, yet some, recognition of the attorney m the progress ot a suit, may easily be shown, and without some such proof, it would be unjust, and a dangerous precedent, to make a party liable for costs. The verdict of the jury is unsupported by any evidence, and the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.