Case Name: Thomas J. O'Neill and Joseph A. Shay, Copartners under the Firm Name of O'Neill & Shay, Respondents, v. Christopher Campbell, Appellant, Impleaded with James Quinn, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-08
Citations: 118 A.D. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas J. O’Neill and Joseph A. Shay, Copartners under the Firm Name of O’Neill & Shay, Respondents, v. Christopher Campbell, Appellant, Impleaded with James Quinn, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 64–69

Head Matter:
Thomas J. O’Neill and Joseph A. Shay, Copartners under the Firm Name of O’Neill & Shay, Respondents, v. Christopher Campbell, Appellant, Impleaded with James Quinn, Defendant.
First Department,
March 8, 1907.
Attorney and client — action to enforce lien after settlement by client — maintenance—.evidence insufficient to set aside retainer as invalid.
An attorney’s written retainer cannot be held to be invalid as procured by a promise to pay the dient a valuable consideration in violation of section 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the evidence does not show that the attorney’s agent who procured the contract and who intimated that the plaintiff would receive help in his household expenses, made such promise before the retainer was signed or that the client was induced thereby to execute it.
Ingbaham and Lambebt, JJ., dissented, with opinion. .
Appeal by the defendant, Christopher Campbell, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 29th day of May, 1906, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.
William J. Moran, for the appellant.
Thomas J. O'Neill, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Laughlin, J.:
The material facts are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Ingraham. It does not appear that the conversation between the client and the person who represented the plaintiffs in procuring the retainer, upon which it is sought to invalidate it, took place before the retainer was signed, or that the client was induced thereby to execute the retainer. I am of opinion, therefore, that' the appellant failed to show facts sufficient to require an adjudication that the retainer was invalid.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Patterson, P. J., and Houghton, J., concurred; Ingraham and Lambert, JJ., dissented.