Arnow v. Charles

New York Supreme Court

Arnow v. Charles

21 N.Y.S. 195, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 509

DecidedDecember 12, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 195 (Arnow v. Charles) 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.

Bluebook

Arnow v. Charles, 21 N.Y.S. 195, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 509 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This' was an action for trespass on lands against sev - eral defendants, and a verdict was rendered in their favor at the circuit. Thereupon the trial judge ordered that but one bill of costs should be taxed in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding that order, the defendant Ferguson taxed a bill of costs in his favor, and entered a judgment therefor, although the costs were allowed by the same order of the trial judge to the defendant Charles. . That judgment was vacated, and the defendant appealed from the order to the general term, where it was reversed. Thereafter the defendant Ferguson noticed another bill of costs for taxation, and, on motion, an order was made at special term, restraining the taxation thereof, and from that order we have this appeal. There is nothing new presented, and this appeal is governed by the former decision of the general term. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DYKMAN, J.

This' was an action for trespass on lands against sev - eral defendants, and a verdict was rendered in their favor at the circuit. Thereupon the trial judge ordered that but one bill of costs should be taxed in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding that order, the defendant Ferguson taxed a bill of costs in his favor, and entered a judgment therefor, although the costs were allowed by the same order of the trial judge to the defendant Charles. . That judgment was vacated, and the defendant appealed from the order to the general term, where it was reversed. Thereafter the defendant Ferguson noticed another bill of costs for taxation, and, on motion, an order was made at special term, restraining the taxation thereof, and from that order we have this appeal. There is nothing new presented, and this appeal is governed by the former decision of the general term. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 195, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnow-v-charles-nysupct-1892.