New York Supreme Court, 1891

Haynes v. Hatch

Haynes v. Hatch
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 14, 1891 · Pratt
16 N.Y.S. 685; 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 475; 62 Hun 620; 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2176 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Deming & Logan, (Charles M. Demond, of counsel,) for appellant. Henry Tompkins, for respondent.

Haynes v. Hatch

Opinion of the Court

Pratt, J.

We think the court below correctly held this case to be controlled by McCaulay v. Palmer, 40 Hun, 38. It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed. After an attorney has appeared in an action, it may well be that a service upon him should be sufficient upon which to base proceedings for contempt against the client. But such change in the practice must be made by the legislature. Order affirmed, without costs.

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