Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Lewis J. Goddard, Appellant, v. Stephen Stiles, Respondent, 1885 — 99 N.Y. 640 · caselaw · US
General
Lewis J. Goddard, Appellant, v. Stephen Stiles, Respondent
99 N.Y. 640·New York Court of Appeals·1885·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Lewis J. Goddard, Appellant, v. Stephen Stiles, Respondent.
(Submitted April 28, 1885;
decided May 5, 1885.)
This case is reported on appeal from, a former order, vacating an execution issued herein and directing the satisfaction of the judgment, in 90 $L T. 199, to which reference is made for the facts there appearing. After the decision of this court therein reversing the order so far as it directed a satisfaction of the judgment, a new execution was issued thereon. Whereupon another motion was made and granted to vacate the same, upon affidavits showing the following facts in addition to those which then appeared. When the order was made substituting the present plaintiff, a receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings against Myron P. Stiles, as plaintiff in his stead, it was on condition that the judgment creditors pay to Stiles’ attorney §800, allowed for his fees. Said compensation was fixed by the written stipulation of the parties including said Stiles. The attorney subsequently agreed to accept §630 in lieu of the sum stated. This was paid "to him by defendant who had purchased the judgments upon which the supplementary proceedings were based. The court here held that as the evidence showed the money was paid upon a claim, settled and fixed by the stipulation and upon consent of Stiles, the difficulty which appeared upon the former appeal was obviated, and as the motion involved a question of fact, the order appealed from was in the discretion of the court, and its decision was not reviewable here. It was objected that leave should first have been obtained before renewing the motion. Held, untenable, as this was not a renewal of the old motion.
J. & Q. Van Voorhis for appellant.
W. H. Adams for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.]
Per Curiam mem.
for dismissal of the appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.