Cunningham v. M'Gregor

The Superior Court of New York City

Cunningham v. M'Gregor

12 How. Pr. 305, 5 Duer 648

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 15, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 12 How. Pr. 305 (Cunningham v. M'Gregor) 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.

Bluebook

Cunningham v. M'Gregor, 12 How. Pr. 305, 5 Duer 648 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Bosworth, Justice.

The plaintiff is a trustee of an express trust. The Code puts such a trustee on the same footing as an executor or administrator, in respect to the costs of an action brought by or against him. Such a trustee necessarily prosecutes by virtue of his rights as trustee. (Code, §§ 111 and 113.) In such an action, if unsuccessful, the costs of the defendant can only be charged upon, or collected out of the estate he represents. (Code, § 317.)

The same rules must be applied to his case as are applied in actions necessarily brought by executors or administrators in their representative capacity. The Code allows of no discrimination between them. He cannot be charged personally, except for “ mismanagement or bad faith in such action or defence.” (Code, § 317.)

Being assured ny the assignors that the balance claimed was justly due, and believing this assurance to be true, and therefore suing, he prosecuted in good faith. The fact that the defendant was, or might have been the only responsible person among the alleged debtors of the assignors, and that the estate might not be sufficient to pay the costs of this action, if successfully defended, is not sufficient to charge the defendant with bad faith in bringing the action. It was, in such a case, as much the duty of the plaintiff to attempt to collect this balance, if he believed the claim to be a just one, as it would have been if there had been other debtors who conceded their liability, and who were abundantly able to pay.

The fact, that no application was made to the defendant before suit brought, does not show bad faith :—it may have been discourteous. All the affidavits taken together show that the plaintiff believed, when he brought the suit, and throughout its progress, that he was entitled to recover.

[307]*307There cannot be said to be bad faith in bringing, or prosecuting to a conclusion, any action in which the plaintiff honestly believes, and is advised by counsel, that he is entitled to recover. He cannot, therefore, be charged personally with the costs of this action. (See 2d R. S. 615, §§ 16, 17; Graham’s Prac. 737-739.)

The motion is denied, but without costs.

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

Bosworth, Justice.

The plaintiff is a trustee of an express trust. The Code puts such a trustee on the same footing as an executor or administrator, in respect to the costs of an action brought by or against him. Such a trustee necessarily prosecutes by virtue of his rights as trustee. (Code, §§ 111 and 113.) In such an action, if unsuccessful, the costs of the defendant can only be charged upon, or collected out of the estate he represents. (Code, § 317.)

The same rules must be applied to his case as are applied in actions necessarily brought by executors or administrators in their representative capacity. The Code allows of no discrimination between them. He cannot be charged personally, except for “ mismanagement or bad faith in such action or defence.” (Code, § 317.)

Being assured ny the assignors that the balance claimed was justly due, and believing this assurance to be true, and therefore suing, he prosecuted in good faith. The fact that the defendant was, or might have been the only responsible person among the alleged debtors of the assignors, and that the estate might not be sufficient to pay the costs of this action, if successfully defended, is not sufficient to charge the defendant with bad faith in bringing the action. It was, in such a case, as much the duty of the plaintiff to attempt to collect this balance, if he believed the claim to be a just one, as it would have been if there had been other debtors who conceded their liability, and who were abundantly able to pay.

The fact, that no application was made to the defendant before suit brought, does not show bad faith :—it may have been discourteous. All the affidavits taken together show that the plaintiff believed, when he brought the suit, and throughout its progress, that he was entitled to recover.

[307]*307There cannot be said to be bad faith in bringing, or prosecuting to a conclusion, any action in which the plaintiff honestly believes, and is advised by counsel, that he is entitled to recover. He cannot, therefore, be charged personally with the costs of this action. (See 2d R. S. 615, §§ 16, 17; Graham’s Prac. 737-739.)

The motion is denied, but without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 How. Pr. 305, 5 Duer 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-mgregor-nysuperctnyc-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack