Case Name: William Tracy and another, respondents, agt. Daniel Stearns and another, appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1881-05
Citations: 61 How. Pr. 265
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Tracy and another, respondents, agt. Daniel Stearns and another, appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
William Tracy and another, respondents, agt. Daniel Stearns and another, appellants.
Reference—Action by attorneys for prof essiondl sei'vices— WAsra compulsory reference not to be ordered.
In an action by attorneys for professional services and disbursements, though the bill of particulars contain a large number of charges, yet, a’s the services were performed and the disbursements made in the prosecution of a single action, it is not a case within the rule permitting a compulsory reference.
First Department, General Term, May, 1881.
Before Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Appeal from an order made at circuit, directing the trial of this action before a referee.
William M. Toimley, for appellants.
Tracy <& Talmadge, for respondents.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.
The aetión was brought to recover the amount of the plaintiffs' demand for services and disbursements rendered and made by them as attorneys in prosecuting an action in the supreme court. The bill of particulars contained a large number of charges, and for that reason it was deemed a long account within the meaning of the rule existing upon this subject, and for that reason the reference was ordered. But as the services were performed and the disbursements made in the prosecution of a single action, that rule is not applicable to the case.
The cause of action was still a single subject-matter, not within the rule permitting a compulsory reference to be ordered. It was a case, on the contrary, which the authorities are quite uniform in holding should he tried hy a jury, unless both parties agree to its trial before a referee (Brinck agt. Public Fire Ins. Co., 2 N. Y. Sup. Ct. [T. C.], 550; Barthgate agt. Haskin, 59 N. Y., 533; Felt agt. Tiffany, 11 Hun, 62; Martin agt. Windsor Hotel Co., 10 Hun, 304; Dittenhoefer agt. Lewis, 5 Daily, 72; Daily agt. Gescheidt, 9 Reporter, 254).
Under the rule sustained by these authorities the order made was not authorized. It should therefore be reversed, with costs to abide the event.
All concur.