Bowers v. Male

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowers v. Male

92 N.Y.S. 183, 102 A.D. 609

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 183 (Bowers v. Male) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowers v. Male, 92 N.Y.S. 183, 102 A.D. 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When the motion was made for an extra allowance, costs of the defendants Messrs. Hinkley and Fitzgerald had not been adjusted, taxed, or noticed for taxation, and, in the judgment as entered by the plaintiff, a vacant space was left wherein they could be entered. It was within the power of the court, therefore, to amend the judgment by permitting, in addition to the costs awarded by the judgment, an extra allowance in such amount as was proper upon the facts.

We think, however, that the amount of the extra allowance was too large, considering the fact that the attorney for these defendants represented other defendants who were unsuccessful, and that the effect would be to take away the entire benefit of the extra allowance awarded to the plaintiff.

The order should accordingly be modified by fixing the amount of the extra allowance of these defendants at $250, and as thus modified it should be affirmed, without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

When the motion was made for an extra allowance, costs of the defendants Messrs. Hinkley and Fitzgerald had not been adjusted, taxed, or noticed for taxation, and, in the judgment as entered by the plaintiff, a vacant space was left wherein they could be entered. It was within the power of the court, therefore, to amend the judgment by permitting, in addition to the costs awarded by the judgment, an extra allowance in such amount as was proper upon the facts.

We think, however, that the amount of the extra allowance was too large, considering the fact that the attorney for these defendants represented other defendants who were unsuccessful, and that the effect would be to take away the entire benefit of the extra allowance awarded to the plaintiff.

The order should accordingly be modified by fixing the amount of the extra allowance of these defendants at $250, and as thus modified it should be affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 183, 102 A.D. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowers-v-male-nyappdiv-1905.