Flood v. Moore

2 Abb. N. Cas. 91
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Westbrook, J.

I was at first inclined to hold that the copy notes should not be allowed as a disbursement. On further reflection, however, I think they should be allowed. Suppose witnesses had been subpoenaed to prove what certain other witnesses swore to on a former trial, and the attorney on taxation testified that they were subpoenaed in good faith because he believed they might be necessary, would they not have been allowed % This motion turns on the same ground.

In anticipation of what might occur on a second trial, the notes were procured. The attorney testifies to the good faith of the procurement, and I think the disbursement is fairly within the letter of the Code.

No costs on motion.

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

Flood v. Moore, 2 Abb. N. Cas. 91 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1877).

2 Abb. N. Cas. 91 (Flood v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zelmanovitz v. Manhattan Railroad
67 N.Y. St. Rep. 405 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Zelmanovitz v. Manhattan Railway Co.
33 N.Y.S. 583 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)
Adams v. New York, Lake Erie & W. R. R. Co.
20 Abb. N. Cas. 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)