Case Name: In re PETERSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-01
Citations: 26 N.Y.S. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re PETERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 26
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
(74 Hun, 93.)
In re PETERSON.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 1, 1893.)
Attorney and Client—Fees.
A claim for $160 was given an attorney for collection, and $40 was paid without action, of which the attorney received $10. Judgment was obtained for the balance without defense being made, and collected by supplementary proceedings. The attorney claimed that he was to have half; the client claimed that the $10 covered all the services. Held, .that an order allowing the attorney $25 more, and compelling him to turn over the balance to the client, would be affirmed.
Appeal from special term.
Application of George Peterson for an order compelling A. J. Adams to pay over certain moneys collected by him as attorney and counselor at law. From such an order, Adams appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and PRATT, J.
Smith Lent, for appellant.
Frank A. Bennett, for respondent.

Opinion:
BARNARD, P. J.
The order appealed from should be affirmed. Peterson held a claim of $160 against one Ganung. The action was put in the hands of the attorney Adams. Forty dollars was paid without action, and Adams received $10 for his services. Adams obtained a judgment by default in favor of Peterson, before a justice of the peace, for the balance of the claim, and Ganung paid the judgment, which was for $122.65. The parties to the transaction differ as to the contract. Adams says he was to have half, and the claimant says the whole services were paid for by the $10. The special term allowed $25 additional, and this was a very ample compensation for the services done. Ganung made no defense, and the money was collected by proceedings supplementary to execution upon the judgment. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.