
    William C. Fitch, Resp’t, v. The Volker & Felthousen Manufacturing Co., App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
    
    
      Filed June 23, 1893.)
    
    Seference—Attorneys.
    The action was for professional services as attorney in a single action, and plaintiff’s bill of particulars specified 49 items for services therein, and 7 for disbursements. The answer admitted the services, but denied that they were of the value stated. Held, that the services being performed in a single action, plaintiff could not, by dividing his labor into periods, convert liis claim into a long account within the meaning of § 1013 of the Code.
    Appeal from an order of the Erie special term referring' the action to a referee to hear, try and determine.
    
      Edward C. Randall, for app’lt; William C. Fitch, in person, for resp’t.
   Lewis, J.

The cause of action stated in the complaint is for services rendered and for disbursements made by plaintiff as an attornej at the request of the defendant to the amount and value of $1,000. Payment of $286.46 on account thereof is admitted, and judgment is demanded for the balance.

The defendant’s answer admits that plaintiff performed services and paid money as attorney for the defendant, but denies that they were of the amount and value of $1,000.'

In response to a demand therefor, the plaintiff served a bill of particulars which contains 56 items, 49 of which are for services, and the balance for disbursements. It is apparent from a perusal of the bill of particulars that the services and disbursements mentioned therein were all rendered and made in one action.

The action was originally commenced in the municipal court, of Buffalo; was tried in that court, an appeal was taken to the-superior court of Buffalo; was there tried and thereafter an appeal was taken to the. general term of that court.

The plaintiff adopted the plan of keeping an itemized book account of his services and disbursements in the action. The first charge is for a retaining.fee, and then follow charges for bringing the action and for services from time to time rendered in the action, for perfecting an appeal; there .are five separate charges for preparing amendments to a proposed case and for services on the settlement thereof.

There is but one cause of action arising out of the contract, to wit: the agreement to collect a claim against one Duero. The service rendered by plaintiff was essentially single, though it required different days work to complete it. Bathgate v. Haskin, 59 N. Y., 533.

The main question litigated upon the trial will be as to the amount and value of plaintiff’s services. He cannot by dividing his labor into periods convert his claim into a long account •within the meaning of § 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The cases of Randall v. Sherman, 131 N.Y., 669; 43 St. Rep., 923, and Spence v. Simis, No. 1 of the Combined Official Series of N. Y. Rep., 616; 51 St. Rep., 167, are decisive of the question presented by this appeal. The latter case was brought to recover for a lawyer’s services and disbursements in four different actions. The account contained 125 items and yet the court held that it was not a case for a compulsory reference, that it was not a long account within the meaning of the term as it is used in the law and as it has been construed and defined in the practice of the courts.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars, costs and disbursements.

Haight and Bradley, JJ., concur.  