Burckle v. Luce

3 How. Pr. 236
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 1848·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Court, Jewett, Chief Judge

Decided, that it was a proper case for double costs, and that the remittitur never having been filed in the court below, this court has jurisdiction of the cause, and ordered that on the Defendant in error returning the remittitur to the clerk of this court, the motion for costs be granted, and the judgment be corrected so as to allow costs according to the notice of motion, without costs of this motion.

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

Burckle v. Luce, 3 How. Pr. 236 (N.Y. 1848).

3 How. Pr. 236 (Burckle v. Luce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Barrett
86 P. 270 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1906)
Heimers v. Davidson
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 308 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1886)