Hoyt v. Phillips

1 Sweeny 76
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedMarch 9, 1869
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Sweeny 76 (Hoyt v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoyt v. Phillips, 1 Sweeny 76 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1869).

Opinion

By the Court:

Monell, J.

This is an appeal from the taxation of a bill of the sheriff for fees, &c., upon an execution under which he had levied upon the defendant’s property. The judgment was after-wards compromised and satisfied by the defendant’s paying a little over half the amount thereof.

The papers furnished to us upon the appeal do not contain any proof whatever on the part of the sheriff of the correctness of the charges, not even the usual affidavit required by the statute (2 R. S., 653, § 7), and we must therefore decide this appeal upon the evidence furnished by the defendant before the taxing officer, and which are printed in the appeal papers.

We think the amount of poundage charged is correct. The fees of the sheriff are regulated by the Revised Statutes, and the case of Parsons v. Bowdoin (17 Wend., 14) was decided under those statutes, and supports the amount claimed in this case. The 243d section of the Code relates exclusively to judgments in attachment suits.

The correctness of the charge for watchmen’s fees must be tested by the evidence before us. The only proof is contained. [77]*77in the affidavits of the defendant, and of his book-keeper and yard-keeper. Those affidavits are not disputed, and they show distinctly that twenty-four days is all that should be allowed for watchmen. Again, the defendant’s affidavits are our only means of ascertaining and determining the reasonableness of the per diem charged. Upon such evidence, three dollars per day for each watchman appears to be a fair amount; and as we must decide this appeal upon the evidence before us, we would not be justified in allowing any larger amount.

There are no levy fees, other than poundage. A fee of sixty-nine cents is allowed for returning an execution.

Upon the principles above stated and the facts, the taxation must be reversed, and the bill readjusted at the following rates fixed by the court, without again going before the taxing officer, viz.:

Poundage................................ $71 25

Two watchmen, 24 days each, at $3 a day each, 144 00

Returning execution....................... 69

$215 94

Deduct amount credited................ 40 00

$175 94

McCunn, J., dissented.

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

Related

Parsons v. Bowdoin
17 Wend. 14 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Sweeny 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-phillips-nysuperctnyc-1869.