British Empire Typesetting Mach. Co. v. Spellissy
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff applied for an order substituting Guggenheimer, Untermyer &. Marshall as attorneys for the plaintiff in this action, and fixing the amount to be paid to Denis A. Spellissy, the plaintiff’s attorney, for his disbursements and services. The action was commenced in 1901 to recover the sum of $20,000 on a guaranty executed by the defendants, guarantying a certain contract made by the Empire Typesetting Machine Company. The plaintiff is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of Great Britain, and having its office in the city of London. Since the commencement of the action it has gone into liquidation, and a liquidator has been appointed by the court having jurisdiction in England. This liquidator instructed Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall to conduct the action for the plaintiff. Mr. Spellissy thereupon expressed a preference to retire from the action, but declined to consent to a substitution, except upon payment to him of $1,000, and to be secured an additional 15 per cent, of the recovery, including costs, basing this demand upon an arrangement with him by a Mr. Foster, who represented the liquidator, whereupon' this motion was made on behalf of the plaintiff for a substitution, and asking that the amount to be paid to the plaintiff’s attorney for his disbursements and services rendered in the action be ascertained. In opposition to this motion, Mr. Spellissy submitted an affidavit stating that he was retained by the managing director of the plaintiff to commence this action; that on the 22d day of December, 1902, a Mr. Foster called upon him in relation to his claim against the plaintiff for services as its attorney; that Mr. Foster agreed to pay Mr. Spellissy $1,000 in cash, and that he should receive 15 per cent, of the damages recovered, and also an equitable share of any costs that might be awarded in the action; that subsequently Foster telephoned that Mr. Samuel Untermyer had instructions to settle with Mr. Spellissy pursuant to his agreement. This affidavit being presented to the court, an order was made appointing a referee to take proof of the claim of Mr. Spellissy as to the contract between the plaintiff and him with respect to his compensation, and from this order both parties appeal.
The plaintiff insists that, Mr. Spellissy not having denied the statement that he has refused to proceed with the action, the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of right, to a substitution. Mr. Spellissy insists that his agreement should be recognized, and that the order of substitution should be made, based upon his agreement with Foster. Undoubtedly, in the present situation, there should be a substitution, so that the claim could be properly prosecuted. The
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.