Howell v. Velth
This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405 (Howell v. Velth) 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.
Opinion
The defendants, having interposed separate answers by different attorneys, are presumably entitled to separate bills of costs; but the plaintiff destroyed this presumption by proof that one of the attorneys who appeared is a clerk of the other attorney, occupying the same office. It was, therefore, in legal effect, an appearance by the same attorney. There was no necessity for a separate defense (Perry v. Livingston, 6 How. Pr. 404). The rule is the same where defendants appear by separate attorneys who are partners (6 How. Pr. 9; 5 Id. 104; 15 Abb. Pr. 75; 16 Barb. 593). The cases relied on by the defendant do not conflict with these "views.
Taxation affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-velth-nynyccityct-1887.