Case Name: MACK v. AUSTIN
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-05-26
Citations: 58 N.Y.S. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: MACK v. AUSTIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 58
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
MACK v. AUSTIN.
(City Court of New York,
General Term.
May 26, 1899.)
Note—Consideration.
A note payable to the order of the attorney of D., given by A. in settlement of the claim of D. against A.,—the attorney having the right and power to make the settlement,—has a good consideration.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Hugo S. Mack against William P. Austin. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
For former opinion, see 55 N. Y. Supp. 446.
Argued before FITZSBÍONS, C. J., and SCHUGHMAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
Thomas O’Callaghan, Jr., for appellant.
E. Walter Beebe, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCHUCHMAN, J.
The complaint sets forth a cause of action on a promissory note made by the defendant on March 2, 1898, for the sum of $116.50, payable to the order of the plaintiff. The answer, as amended on the trial, amounts to a general denial. The proofs at the trial show that a check of $100 and the note in suit were given by the defendant to the plaintiff, who was the attorney of Dowling & Worms, in payment or settlement of a claim of Dowling & Worms for commissions, on a deal of three houses, against the defendant. The payment or settlement of that claim constituted a good consideration for said note. The attorney had the right and the power to make the settlement, and Dowling & Worms, his clients, were bound by it; and the defendant, Austin, was protected thereby, and released from all liability on said claim on behalf of Dowling & Worms. Dowling & Worms had to look to their attorney, the plaintiff, for their money. There is no merit in any one of the defendant's exceptions.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.