Canfield v. Gaylord

12 Wend. 236
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 20, 1834·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The defendants who obtained a verdict are entitled to a full bill of costs against the plaintiffs. 2 R. S. 616, § 18. The statute gives them their costs; and although the same services which were rendered for them were also rendered for the other defendant, against whom the plaintiff recovered, still, as the statute has not prescribed any rule of apportionment in such a case, it is not in the power of the court to make it. The defendants, however, have no right to make up a separate record ; they are entitled to have a judgment for costs in their favor, incorporated into the [237]*237plaintiff’s record ; and if he refuses so to make up his record, the court will compel him to do it. The items in relation to a separate judgment having been stricken out by the taxing officer, there is no necessity for a re-taxation.

Motion denied.

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

Canfield v. Gaylord, 12 Wend. 236 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

12 Wend. 236 (Canfield v. Gaylord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prentiss v. Bowden
35 N.Y.S. 653 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
Prentiss v. Bowden
70 N.Y. St. Rep. 517 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)
Monnet v. Merz
17 N.Y.S. 380 (Superior Court of New York, 1892)
Monnet v. Merz
28 Jones & S. 256 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1892)
Johnson v. Farrell
10 Abb. Pr. 384 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Hall v. Lindo
8 Abb. Pr. 341 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1859)
Albany & West Stockbridge Rail-Road v. Cady
6 Hill & Den. 265 (New York Supreme Court, 1843)
Hinman v. Booth
20 Wend. 666 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)