Eisberg v. Cornell

154 A.D. 885, 138 N.Y.S. 661
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 A.D. 885 (Eisberg v. Cornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eisberg v. Cornell, 154 A.D. 885, 138 N.Y.S. 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Scott, J.:

We are of the opinion that the complaint was rightly dismissed as against the defendants Cornell and Willets. It was erroneous, however, to enter a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant Weil. The record shows that as to him the action was discontinued by consent on the trial. That eliminated him from the action, and thereafter no judgment could run either for or against him. If he desired costs against the plaintiff, to which he probably was entitled, he should have entered an order of discontinuance containing a provision for such costs. The judgment must be modified by striking out so much thereof as awards costs to the defendant Weil against the plaintiff, and as modified affirmed with costs to the respondents Cornell and Willets. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ., concurred. Judgment modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondents Cornell and Willets. Order to be settled on notice.

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

Related

Menut & Parks Co. v. Village of St. Johnsbury
39 A.2d 342 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1944)
Pure Oil Co. v. Carter
188 A.D. 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 A.D. 885, 138 N.Y.S. 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisberg-v-cornell-nyappdiv-1912.