Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of MARTHA C. KUHNE, Respondent, v. HENRY DAILY, Jr., &c., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1880-12
Citations: 30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 282
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of MARTHA C. KUHNE, Respondent, v. HENRY DAILY, Jr., &c., Appellant.
Judges: Present — Barnard, P. J.; Gilbert and Dykman, J«L
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 30
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of MARTHA C. KUHNE, Respondent, v. HENRY DAILY, Jr., &c., Appellant.
Attorney — power of the court to compel him to deal justly with his client — a referee map he appointed to tahe proof of the facts.
Appeal from an order made at Special Term, referring it to a referee to take proof of the matters set forth in the petition of the relator, and of such pertinent matters as should be submitted by the respondent in answer thereto, and of matter in reply, and to take and state the account between the parties and submit the same to the court, with his opinion thereon. This proceeding was instituted by the relator to compel the respondent, an attorney and counselor at law, to settle her account, and compel him to transfer certain property to her.
The court, at General Term, said : “ The object of this proceeding is to afford a suitable remedy to this petitioner, for alleged misconduct towards her on the part of her attorney.
“No adjudication of the matters involved has yet been made, but the court has merely ordered a reference to ascertain the requisite facts preliminary to such an adjudication. The jurisdiction of the court to entertain a summary proceeding like this, for the puipose of compelling an attorney to do justicq to his client, cannot be doubted. It springs from its power and duty, both at common law and by statute, to exercise needful control over the conduct of the officers of the court. (Gr. Pr., 52; BowVmg Green Sawings Blc. v. Todd, 52 N. Y., 489.) If on the final hearing it shall appear that the respondent has not been guilty of any misconduct, or that justice requires that the controversy should be determined by action, the court may so order. But in the meantime the reference should not be interrupted upon the respondent’s assertion of a right to trial by jury.”
Order affirmed, with $10 costs, and disbursements.
Daily & Orosby, for the appellant.
A. H. Dailey, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Gilbert, J.
Present — Barnard, P. J.; Gilbert and Dykman, J«L
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.