upon his election. I have had some experience in judicial life; I have had some contact with judges, and a large contact with members of the bar; and I only pay a just tribute to my deceased colleague when I say that no one with whom I have ever come in contact in the discharge of intellectual duties fulfilled, in my judgment, all the requirements, so much as he did. Gentle in his nature, painstaking; accurate and conscientious, there was no amount of labor that he was not willing to bestow, no attention that he was not prepared to give. Where industry is stimulated by exceeding conscientiousness as it was in his case, it naturally followed that great confidence was felt in his conclusions, springing as they did from so pure a motive, and after so diligent and laborious an exercise of all the qualities which are requisite to secure a sound judgment upon any thing. It was not only in this respect that he was most valuable to us, but if I may be permitted to use what is not common upon public occasions, he was very dear to us for other qualities. I think there is an old Russian proverb that says "you never know any thing of a man until you have made a campaign with him ;" and my experience is that you know comparatively little of a judge unless you are associated with him in the discharge of official duties. You then see more clearly the motives by which he is actuated. You see a great deal which the world can never see. You get an insight into his finer and better qualities which is not perceptible to those outside; and it is this knowledge which makes the loss of Judge Robinson to us a very great one. We can all unite in the statement that during the period he was in the Court the greatest harmony prevailed in our intercourse with him, which was never in any way affected. When there was difference of judgment on his part there was always that kindly bearing which it is easy to remember, but difficult to express; a uniformity and gentleness of character which was exceedingly attractive in official intercourse. He always met us with a pleasant smile,

and such a thing as an unkindly word never passed his lips; nor so far as the human countenance is an index did he ever

appear to harbor an unkindly thought. We are especially grateful to the gentlemen who have taken the trouble upon this occasion to call particular attention to the special merits of our deceased colleague-Mr. Marsh, Judge Birdseye and Judge Van Vorst. They have dwelt upon the intellectual and moral qualities by which he was distinguished so fully that it is unnecessary for me to say any thing more. I can only say, gentlemen, in conclusion, that we feel his loss much more deeply than it is in our power to express, for those things are felt most which are beyond expression. We are exceedingly grateful for the tribute which has been paid to his memory, and none know better than we do how justly it has been bestowed.

The question was then put upon the adoption of the resolutions that had been offered by Mr. Vanderpoel and the resolutions were adopted.

Upon motion of Mr. Charles Tracey the secretary of the meeting was directed to transmit a copy of the resolutions to the family of Judge Robinson, and also to furnish copies to the public press for publication.

The meeting then adjourned.

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

FOR THE

CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THEODORE M. DAVIS, RECEIVER OF THE OCEAN NATIONAL BANK FOR A SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS.

(Decided February 5th, 1877.)

A party to certain suits in this court having applied for a substitution of attorneys, an order of reference was made to take testimony and report the same with his opinion as to whether such substitution should be ordered, and if so upon what terms. A large amount of testimony was taken before the referee as to the amount, nature and value of the services of the attorneys sought to be removed, and the referee made his report advising that the substitution should be ordered upon certain payments being made and security given by the party applying therefor. After this report had been filed the applicant prayed leave to withdraw his application for a substitution and to have the report vacated upon such terms as to payment of costs as should be just: Held, that under the circumstances, the application should be denied; that the applicant having invoked the jurisdic tion of the court over the dispute between himself and his attorney and litigated on the reference the amount due from him to his attorneys, he should not be allowed to escape the effect of the court's decision on that point; that the report should be confirmed so far as it was found correct, in order that the attorneys VOL. VII.--1

Matter of Davis.

might have the benefit of such force as it might have as evidence in any suit between themselves and the applicant to recover for the services rendered by them in the suits in which they were sought to be removed.

Security for payment for services of an attorney in suits in another court will not be required as a condition of ordering another attorney to be substituted in his stead in suits in this court.

APPEAL from an order made at special term by Judge VAN BRUNT confirming the report of a referee to whom upon an application for substitution of other attorneys in four suits pending in this court, in the place of F. N. & C. W. Bangs, (who were unwilling to render any further services therein until payment was made for services already rendered; upon the amount of which the applicant and his attorneys were unable to agree ;) it had been referred to take testimony and report the same with his opinion as to whether substitution should be ordered, and if so upon what terms; what sum if any should be paid to said attorneys upon substitution, and what security, if any. should be required for such portion of their claim as should not be paid on substitution. The order of Judge VAN BRUNT confirmed the report of the referee upon the merits, but provided that upon payment by the applicant of the expenses which his application had caused the attorneys proceeded against, he might as a matter of favor withdraw his application, and that upon such payment and withdrawal, the report should be vacated. From this portion of the order the attorneys proceeded against appealed.

S. W. Fullerton, for appellant.

George Bliss, Jr., for respondent.

CHARLES P. DALY, Chief Justice.-The applicant desiring to substitute another attorney for the Messrs. Bangs, in the four suits pending in this court, and he and the Messrs. Bangs being unable to agree as to the amount of their compensation for their services as attorneys and counsel in these suits, he made an application to the

Matter of Davis.

court for the substitution of another attorney; and the court after hearing the parties, ordered it to be referred to a referee to take testimony and report the same with his opinion, as to whether such order should be made, and if so, upon what terms;—what sum, if any, should be paid to said attorneys and counsel, and what security, if any, should be required for such portion of their claim as should not be paid upon the substitution. Under this order, there was a hearing before the referee, which went on from May to October, broken only by the summer vacation,-during which a large amount of testimony was given by Messrs. Bangs as to the nature of the services which they had rendered, and as to their value. On the 12th of July, 1876, the testimony on behalf of Messrs. Bangs was closed, and the reference was adjourned to the 25th of September, that the applicant might give testimony; but on that day it was further adjourned at the plaintiff's request to the 28th of that month. On September 28th, Mr. Sly, who appeared for the applicant on the reference, applied, upon the ground of his inability to obtain the attendance of witnesses and on account of the absence of the applicant, for a further adjournment to October 2d, which was granted; and on the 2d of October, Mr. Bliss, through Mr. DaCosta, the counsel of Messrs. Bangs, proposed to settle the claim for $6,000—to which Mr. Bangs at first objected, but finally assented, if Mr. Bliss would, on the succeeding day, send down an offer of judgment for $6,000— and the amount of the printer's bill, which was not done; but two days after that time, an offer of judgment for $6,000 without any offer to pay the printer's bill was made by Mr. Bliss to Mr. DaCosta, which being communicated to Mr. Bangs, he declined to accept it. The reference was further continued by adjournments, no evidence being given by the applicant; but a correspondence passed between Mr. Bliss and Mr. Bangs, which led to no result; and on the 21st of October, Mr. Bliss gave notice to Messrs. Bangs and their attorneys, that the motion for a substitution of attorneys was withdrawn and countermanded; that the referee, Mr. Hall, had been asked for his bill, which would be paid; and ten