TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. Glenny

Williams v. . Glenny.

Williams v. Glenny, 16 N.Y. 389 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1857
Judges
Denio, Shankland
Citations
16 N.Y. 389
Cited by 25
Headnotes
The presentment by a party to his debtor of an account in which he charges a gross sum for services for which he is entitled to be paid quantum meruitj there being no payment nor settlement of the account, does not preclude the creditor from showing what the services were reasonably worth, and recovering a larger sum than that at which they were so charged by him.
Summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court sitting in the eighth district. The action was brought to recover for certain services rendered by the plaintiff and his former partner (who had assigned his interest to the plaintiff), as proctors and advocates in the Court of Admiralty of the United States. The case was tried by Mr. Ganson, as referee. The plaintiff proved that he and his said’partner were employed, on behalf of the defendant, to prosecute a libel in admiralty against the steamboat The Globe, in which suit a claim was interposed by one Maxwell. There was a decree in favor of the libellant, in the district court, which was reversed in the Circuit Court of the United States, the plaintiff and his partner acting for the defendant throughout. The case states that the plaintiff" gave evidence tending to show that their services were worth about $500. There were othes accounts between the parties, in respect to which no question arose. The referee allowed the plaintiff $400 for services in the admiralty suit, and $17.67 for disbursements, and reported a balance in his favor of $297.67. The defendant produced and gave in evidence, on the trial, an account in the plaintiff’s handwriting, but not signed by him, in the following words: “H. H. Glenny, “To I. T. Williams, Dr. “For disbursements over and above cash receipts, . $14 88 “ For services in Globe suit,................... 150 00 “For services in Clark suit,.................... 50 00 $2U 88 “ The above is in full of all demands to this date. April 4, 1853. Eec’d paym’t.” The defendant excepted to the report, claiming that the plaintiff should have been held concluded by the foregoing account. The judgment on the report had been affirmed at a general term. The appeal was by the defendant. The case was submitted on printed points.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 391 The paper produced by the defendant was evidence merely, and not in any sense conclusive in its nature. There was no proof of an acquiescence in it, or an assent to its correctness, on the part of the defendant. From the unsigned receipt at the foot, it would appear to have been tendered for immediate payment, but it was not pretended that payment had been made, nor was it shown when or under what circumstances the paper came into the possession of the defendant. Had it been a settled account, it would have been subject to be reëxamined upon proof of a mistake; and we cannot say that the evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove the prices, was not of such a nature as to show that the claim for this considerably smaller sum was clearly a mistake. But I do not think a claim for a round sum, where the subject of the demand is one which would naturally consist of many items, is in the nature of an account. It is no doubt an admission, and as such prima facie evidence, limiting the plaintiff's claim to the amount mentioned. But we must presume that the plaintiff gave evidence sufficient fairly to overcome the presumption which the paper afforded.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Concurrence

The plaintiff performed certain services for the defendant, as solicitor and proctor in the courts of the United States, and subsequently rendered a bill of such services to the defendant, in which he charged for those services, in gross, the sum of $150. The bill was dated *Page 392 April 4, 1853, but when it was presented to the defendant did not appear. Subsequently, in December, 1853, this action was commenced for those services, on a quantum meruit, and on the trial the plaintiff proved those services to be worth about $500. The defendant gave in evidence the bill rendered by the plaintiff, in which the services were charged at $150, and insisted, before the referee, that the plaintiff could recover only that sum for those services. The referee decided otherwise, and defendant excepted. I am of opinion the referee decided correctly. The plaintiff's own estimate of the value of his services was high evidence against himself, and no doubt had its due weight given to it by the referee, but it was not in the nature of an estoppel to preclude the truth. Had the defendant paid the bill when presented, it would have been an accord and satisfaction of the services, although less than their real value. But the defendant chose to litigate, and the question of value of the services was open to proof as a question of fact. This is the only question of law raised in the case, and the judgment should be affirmed.

All the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 25 cases

View all citing references →
1871–1872: 11875–1876: 11879–1880: 21887–1888: 21889–1890: 41891–1892: 21895–1896: 11899–1900: 11901–1902: 21905–1906: 11911–1912: 11921–1922: 21925–1926: 11927–1928: 11945–1946: 11953–1954: 11989–1990: 118712026peak 1889 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Co. of Newark156 N.E. 76 (N.Y. 1927)
  2. Chinn v. Lewin16 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1926)
  3. Burlingame v. Shelmire12 N.Y.S. 655 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1891)
  4. Grant v. Tefft7 N.Y.S. 129 (1889)
  5. Harrison v. Ayers25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1879)
  6. Heath v. Kyles17 N.Y. St. Rep. 469 (1888)

Most recent

  1. City of New York v. Corcoran150 Misc. 2d 359 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990)
  2. Mandell v. Curtis205 Misc. 856 (1954)
  3. Fraser v. Crounse45 A.2d 757 (D.C. 1946)
  4. Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Co. of Newark156 N.E. 76 (N.Y. 1927)
  5. Chinn v. Lewin16 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1926)
  6. Hart v. American Concrete Steel Co.278 F. 541 (E.D.N.Y. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list