Forrest v. Thompson

City of New York Municipal Court

Forrest v. Thompson

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided February 15, 1887·Published

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.

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

Pincite

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 345 (Forrest v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related