Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al. Ex'rs, etc., Resp'ts, v. George C. Eldridge, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-13
Citations: 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al. Ex’rs, etc., Resp’ts, v. George C. Eldridge, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 24
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of James M. Waterbury et al. Ex’rs, etc., Resp’ts, v. George C. Eldridge, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 13, 1889.)
Attorney and client—Compensation—When estimated by the count—Refenence.
In a proceeding to compel an attorney to turn over to the petitioners, his clients, a certain sum collected by him for petitioners, and which he claimed the right to retain in payment for services, where it appears that he has rendered a bill for his services and was fully paid, ana the value thereof could he readily and properly estimated by the court, there is no occasion to send the matter to a referee, or turn thepetititioner over to his action. Dykman, J , dissenting.
Appeal from an order of the Kings special term.
This proceeding was for the procurement of an order to ■compel the summary payment of money collected by defendant, as the attorney of the petitioners, and which he claimed the right to retain in payment for services rendered.
George W. Miller, for app’lt; Hubbard Hendrickson, for resp’ts.

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 seutled in full.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurs.