Harden v. Hardick

2 Hill & Den. 384
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1842·Published

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

The defendant is only entitled to such costs as had accrued at the time notice of discontinuance was received. If not paid on taxation, he may proceed in the cause the same as if no rule to discontinue were ever entered; (McKenster v. Van Zandt, 1 Wend. 13; Grah. Prac. 604, 2d ed.;) for in such case the rule may be treated as a nullity. (Id. ibid. Leonard v. Slaughter, 10 John. R. 367; Robinson v. Taylor, 12 Wend. 191.)

Motion granted.

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

Harden v. Hardick, 2 Hill & Den. 384 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1842).

2 Hill & Den. 384 (Harden v. Hardick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

M'Kenster v. Van Zandt
1 Wend. 13 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)
Robinson v. Taylor
12 Wend. 191 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)