Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of ALPHONSINE MERTIAN, to compel payment to her by EDWARD W. BRENEN of Money received by him as her Attorney
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-03
Citations: 36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of ALPHONSINE MERTIAN, to compel payment to her by EDWARD W. BRENEN of Money received by him as her Attorney.
Judges: Davis, . P. J., and Daotels, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 36
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of ALPHONSINE MERTIAN, to compel payment to her by EDWARD W. BRENEN of Money received by him as her Attorney.
Aitwney — when compelled, upon petition of client, to pay over money collected for him.
Appeal from an order of the Special Term requiring Edward W. Brenen, attorney-at-law, to pay over to the petitioner the sum of $200 and ten dollars costs of motion.
By the verified petition and other proofs in the case, it appears that the appellant had collected for his client, the petitioner, in three several suits from various debtors of the petitioner, the sum of $271. In addition to that sum, he had received for disbursements from the petitioner herself fifty-one dollars, mating in all the sum of $322. After deducting the compensation due the appet lant under an agreement between him and bis client by which he should receive ten per cent of the amount of collections where there was no litigation, and twenty-five per cent of the amount in the cases that were litigated, there was a sum coming to the petitioner of $225.50, but the amount directed by the Special Term to be paid by the attorney was, by consent of the petitioner, reduced to $200.
The court at General Term said: “ The facts of the petition standing substantially uncontradicted, we think it was competent for the Special Term to direct in this summary manner the attorney to pay over the moneys to his client. Were there any facts in dispute between the parties as to the condition of the accounts between them, we should be inclined to put the petitioner to her action at law against her attorney, but where it stands admitted that an officer of this court has money belonging to his client collected by him in the course of his employment and refuses to pay over the same, the court has the power, without putting the party to an action, to compel the attorney to pay it.” ' .
The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Thomas Nolan, for Edward W. Brenen, appellant.
John McCrone, for the petitioner, respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Maoombeb, J.;
Davis, . P. J., and Daotels, J., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.