Bartels v. Redfield

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Bartels v. Redfield

47 F. 708, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1498

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided October 9, 1891·Published

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge,

(orally.) The rule is that costs follow recovery, and I see no reason why there should be any exception here. The silence of the supreme court as to costs of this court is not significant, in view of the tact that the subject was not presented to it. Judgment should therefore be entered for the plaintiffs for the amount of the sums and the interest thereon specified in the opinion and the mandate of the supreme court, together with the aforesaid $690.50, costs and disbursements of this court.

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

Lacombe, Circuit Judge,

(orally.) The rule is that costs follow recovery, and I see no reason why there should be any exception here. The silence of the supreme court as to costs of this court is not significant, in view of the tact that the subject was not presented to it. Judgment should therefore be entered for the plaintiffs for the amount of the sums and the interest thereon specified in the opinion and the mandate of the supreme court, together with the aforesaid $690.50, costs and disbursements of this court.

Bartels v. Redfield, 47 F. 708, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1498 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

47 F. 708 (Bartels v. Redfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.