Bulkley v. Smith, Brush, & Kettletas

1 Duer 704
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided April 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The judges, consulted by Oakley, Ch. J., wer.e all of opinion that the provisions in the R. S. relative to the allowance of costs to defendants, were, no longer in force ; and that as the defendants were plainly not united in interest, and Kettletas [705]*705had made a separate defence, the allowance of costs to him was governed by § 306 of the Code, and therefore rested entirely in the discretion of the court. Ho judgment for costs could be rendered in his favor, unless upon his application, and when this application should be made, the question whether he was properly made a defendant might be considered. The plaintiff’s application was therefore denied. Vide Moore v. Westervelt, 3 Sand. S. C. R., p. 762.

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

Bulkley v. Smith, Brush, & Kettletas, 1 Duer 704 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

1 Duer 704 (Bulkley v. Smith, Brush, & Kettletas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haye v. Robertson
6 Jones & S. 59 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)
Heye v. Robertson
15 Abb. Pr. 194 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)
Wilklow v. Bell
18 How. Pr. 397 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Williams v. Horgan & Horgan
13 How. Pr. 138 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1856)