Bulkley v. Smith, Brush, & Kettletas
This text of 1 Duer 704 (Bulkley v. Smith, Brush, & Kettletas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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 J., wer.e all of opinion that the provisions in the R. S. relative to the allowance of costs to defendants, were, no longer in force ; and that as the defendants were plainly not united in interest, and Kettletas [705]*705had made a separate defence, the allowance of costs to him was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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Duer 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulkley-v-smith-brush-kettletas-nysuperctnyc-1853.