New York Supreme Court, 1812

Ousterhout v. Day

New York Supreme Court · Decided May 15, 1812

9 Johns. 114

Counsel

■Sudam, for the defendant, contended that the mere lapse of time before the plaintiff applied to the defendant, was sufficient to discharge him., Foot, contra, insisted that as the services rendered were solely for the benefit of the defendant, he was responsible; and that there was a difference between services voluntarily performed, and at the option of a party, and such as he was compelled by law to perform-

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, as sheriff, was entitled to look to the attorney for his fees; and, in this case, he has elected to look to him exclusively, and has given to him the whole credit. Admitting, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled, in the first instance, to look to the client, he has here waived that right, and resorted to the attorney. Under the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to conclude the plaintiff by his election. The principle stated in the cases cited by the defendant’s counsel is applicable There must be judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for the defendant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.