Howell v. Velth

City of New York Municipal Court

Howell v. Velth

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405

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

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

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

McAdam, Ch. J.

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.

Howell v. Velth, 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405 (Howell v. Velth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related