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.
Richard Rowland, Respondent, v. Benjamin A. Hegeman, Executor, etc., Appellant, 1874 — 59 N.Y. 643 · caselaw · US
General
Richard Rowland, Respondent, v. Benjamin A. Hegeman, Executor, etc., Appellant
59 N.Y. 643·New York Court of Appeals·1874·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
Richard Rowland, Respondent, v. Benjamin A. Hegeman, Executor, etc., Appellant.
(Argued November 25, 1874;
decided December 8, 1874.)
This was an action to recover for services as attorney and counsel, alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff to defendant’s testator.
Defendant put in evidence certain bills for services, receipted by plaintiff. The latter, as a witness in his own behalf, was permitted to testify that the bills were not in full for the services rendered in the suits specified. This was objected to, on the ground that plaintiff was not competent as a witness in reference thereto, under section 399 of the Code. It appeared that the referee disallowed all further claims in the suits specified. Held, that if the reception of the evidence was error, it appeared clearly that it could have done no injury.
Various findings of the referee were objected to as having no evidence to sustain them. The court held (Grover and Folger, JJ., dissenting), that there was some evidence, sufficient to make these questions of fact, and so not reviewable here.
Ira Shafer for the appellant.
A. B. Convers for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Allen, J.,]
Allen, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Grover and Folgee, JJ., dissenting. Judgment affirmed.