Alcott v. Phelps
This text of 1 Cow. 170 (Alcott v. Phelps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This section
Sampson. For the four last charges, Mr. Breese has allowed us the Common Pleas charges for a judgment and execution. Are we not entitled to our folio in these 2
J. A. Spencer, amicus curios, in the Common^ Pleas, a general continuance is authorized by the statute. In this Court full continuances are required. Do they not, then, come under the provision allowing for necessary services ?
J. C. Spencer, for the defendant, said that as ,to a judgment record and execution, the statute had established a rate for the Common Pleas, but not so as to the nisi prius record, for which nothing ought to be allowed.
Curia. The two first items must be allowed as charged. The four last were correctly taxed by the Clerk. Where the recovery, as here, is under 250 dollars, the charges for similar services are the same in both Courts. Thus, a capias, subpoena, judgment record, and execution, are taxed at the same in both Courts. But where the service here is unknown in the Common Pleas, it is allowed for by the folio, at the Common Pleas rate of charge for folios there, within the clause of the statute allowing for necessary services.
Rule accordingly».
Sec. 4,1 R. L. 23.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cow. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcott-v-phelps-nysupct-1823.