Flynn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

New York Supreme Court

Flynn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 212

DecidedMay 15, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 212 (Flynn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flynn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 212 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam:

We think it is plain, from the language of section 309 of the Code, that the successful party can recover only one extra allowance, although the case may have been tried several times. Such was the view of the learned justice, whose order is appealed from ; but he felt bound to hold otherwise on the authority of Howell v. Van Siclen (4 Abb. [N. C.], 1). Aside from the extra allowance, the successful party is entitled to his costs for all the proceedings in the case, except such as, being discretionary, have not been given to him. The plaintiff in this case, therefore, is entitled to tax the costs of both trials — the costs at the General Term and the costs at the Court of Appeals.

Nothing is said in the points presented on either side as to the item of interest on verdict; and we therefore pass that item.

The bill of costs must be modified, therefore, by striking out $257.55, being five per cent extra allowance on the first verdict; and, as thus modified, affirmed. No costs of this appeal to either party.

Present — LearNed, P. J., BoardmaN and Bocees, JJ.

Costs modified by striking out $257.55, being five per cent extra allowance on first verdict. No costs of appeal to either party.

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

Per Guriam:

We think it is plain, from the language of section 309 of the Code, that the successful party can recover only one extra allowance, although the case may have been tried several times. Such was the view of the learned justice, whose order is appealed from ; but he felt bound to hold otherwise on the authority of Howell v. Van Siclen (4 Abb. [N. C.], 1). Aside from the extra allowance, the successful party is entitled to his costs for all the proceedings in the case, except such as, being discretionary, have not been given to him. The plaintiff in this case, therefore, is entitled to tax the costs of both trials — the costs at the General Term and the costs at the Court of Appeals.

Nothing is said in the points presented on either side as to the item of interest on verdict; and we therefore pass that item.

The bill of costs must be modified, therefore, by striking out $257.55, being five per cent extra allowance on the first verdict; and, as thus modified, affirmed. No costs of this appeal to either party.

Present — LearNed, P. J., BoardmaN and Bocees, JJ.

Costs modified by striking out $257.55, being five per cent extra allowance on first verdict. No costs of appeal to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-equitable-life-assurance-society-nysupct-1879.