Hearn v. Sullivan

New York Supreme Court

Hearn v. Sullivan

13 Abb. N. Cas. 371

DecidedJanuary 15, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Abb. N. Cas. 371 (Hearn v. Sullivan) 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

Hearn v. Sullivan, 13 Abb. N. Cas. 371 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Westbbook, J.

The clerk did not err in allowing costs as in an action. The order of the special term, awarding costs, was his guide. The order was “ that the defendants have judgment for costs and disbursements of this action.” The order designates the proceeding as “an action,” and the remedy, if any, was by appeal from the order, and not by appeal from the taxation of this clerk, and thus to ask one special term to overrule another.

But the order of the special term was right. It is unnecessary to discuss the question whether this proceeding was a “special proceeding” or an “action,” for the statute (3 R. S. [6 ed.] 97, § 48), has declared that when costs are awarded in such a matter they shall be “as in actions against executors,” and although it was a “special proceeding,” the court had power (Code Civ. Pro. §3240) to award costs “as in actions brought in the same court.”

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Westbbook, J.

The clerk did not err in allowing costs as in an action. The order of the special term, awarding costs, was his guide. The order was “ that the defendants have judgment for costs and disbursements of this action.” The order designates the proceeding as “an action,” and the remedy, if any, was by appeal from the order, and not by appeal from the taxation of this clerk, and thus to ask one special term to overrule another.

But the order of the special term was right. It is unnecessary to discuss the question whether this proceeding was a “special proceeding” or an “action,” for the statute (3 R. S. [6 ed.] 97, § 48), has declared that when costs are awarded in such a matter they shall be “as in actions against executors,” and although it was a “special proceeding,” the court had power (Code Civ. Pro. §3240) to award costs “as in actions brought in the same court.”

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Abb. N. Cas. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hearn-v-sullivan-nysupct-1884.