Forrest v. Thompson

City of New York Municipal Court

Forrest v. Thompson

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345

DecidedFebruary 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345 (Forrest v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forrest v. Thompson, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, C. J.

The defendants are not united in interest, interposed separate answers by different attorneys, and there is no evidence that the several appearances were in bad faith, and for the purpose of incurring costs. The defendants were, therefore, entitled to separate bills of costs (Lane v. Van Orden, 11 Abb. N. C., 228; Royce v. Jones, 23 Hun, 452; Delaware L. and W. R. R. Co. v. Burkhard, 2 N. Y. State R., 184, Code, § 3229), and the order limiting them to one bill must be reversed, with costs.

Nehrbas and Hyatt, JJ., concur.

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

McAdam, C. J.

The defendants are not united in interest, interposed separate answers by different attorneys, and there is no evidence that the several appearances were in bad faith, and for the purpose of incurring costs. The defendants were, therefore, entitled to separate bills of costs (Lane v. Van Orden, 11 Abb. N. C., 228; Royce v. Jones, 23 Hun, 452; Delaware L. and W. R. R. Co. v. Burkhard, 2 N. Y. State R., 184, Code, § 3229), and the order limiting them to one bill must be reversed, with costs.

Nehrbas and Hyatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrest-v-thompson-nynyccityct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack