Goldstone v. Sperling
California Supreme Court
Goldstone v. Sperling, 39 Cal. 447 (Cal. 1870)
Rhodes
Goldstone v. Sperling
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The defendant was notified by his attorney, that unless his fees were paid, he would not further conduct the defense to the action; and the fees not being paid, he gave no further attention to the case. The defendant neither retained another attorney nor appeared in the action in person. This was gross negligence on his part, and he was not entitled to a new trial, on the ground that he was surprised by the nonattendance of his attorney, when the cause was called for trial.
Order reversed and cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MITCHELL GOLDSTONE v. A. SPERLING
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- New Teial.—Sdbpbise.—Where an attorney has notified his client that unless his fees are paid he will abandon his case, and the client has failed to pay the fees, he is not entitled to a new trial on the ground of surprise by the nonattendance of his attorney at the trial.