Harvey v. Bardwell
This text of 6 Cow. 57 (Harvey v. Bardwell) 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.
Opinion
The demand of the plaintiffs having been narrowed down to a money claim; and there being no need of the penalty to secure further breaches ; and the damages reported being only 14 dollars, and below what, in a judgment, would carry costs, the question is, whether the penalty or the damages were the proper measure of the judgment. When that is ascertained, we have a test for the costs. (13 John. Rep, 345.)
The case of Alendorph v. Stickle, (2 Cowen, 412,) was one of set off, within the statute, 1 R. L. 515, 16. It was this, which led to the distinction mentioned by the court, between bonds for performance of covenants, and money bonds. Where the latter are in question upon a set off, the sum really due is the debt; and the judgment goes accordingly, either for plaintiff or defendant. Except in the single case of set off, all bonds and agreements secured by a penalty, stand on the same footing ; and the plaintiff recovers costs according to the penalty. The case of set off is sui generis, and stands upon the statute providing for that alone. ( Vid. 2 John. Cas. 406. 10 John. Rep. 219. 13 id. 345. 5 Cowen, 424. 2 Cain. Rep. 107.)
The motion must be denied with costs.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Cow. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-bardwell-nysupct-1826.