
    SUGARMAN v. MANDOLLA et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 19, 1904.)
    1. Attorney and Client—Assignment of Claims—Code Provisions.
    Under Code Civ. Proc. § 73, providing that an attorney shall not directly or indirectly buy any thing in action with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action thereon, an action cannot be maintained by an attorney on a claim assigned to him for the purpose of bringing an action in the county.
    f 1. See Champerty and Maintenance, vol. 9, Cent. Dig. §§ 37, 39.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.
    Action by Samuel Sugarman against Braggio Mandolla and another. From a for defendants Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and TRUAX and SCOTT, JJ.
    A. J. Oishei, for appellants.
    S. Sugarman, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, an attorney and counselor at law, sues upon an assigned claim for goods sold and delivered. The transaction occurred in Brooklyn, and this action was brought in New York county. Upon the trial, plaintiff’s assignor testified as follows:

“Q. You assigned this claim to Mr. Sugarman [plaintiff] ? A. Yes, sir. Q. For the purpose of bringing an action in this county? A. Yes, sir; he is my attorney.”

This brings the case directly within the inhibition of section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff. Browning v. Marvin, 100 N. Y. 144, 2 N. E. 635; Fay v. Hebbard, 4 N. Y. St. Rep. 485.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  