Hyde v. Anderson

112 A.D. 76, 98 N.Y.S. 62, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 1906·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The order should be reversed and the motion granted. The judgment was unauthorized ; judgment may not be entered for costs allowed on a motion (Code Civ. Proc. § 779). Moreover, the order of discontinuance should not have been absolute, as it was. It could only impose the costs as a condition of discontinuance, and then the plaintiff would have been free to pay the costs and discontinue, or go on with the action.

Order reversed with costs and disbursements, and motion, granted with costs.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.

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

Hyde v. Anderson, 112 A.D. 76, 98 N.Y.S. 62, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

112 A.D. 76 (Hyde v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solomon v. Rothenberg
146 Misc. 277 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1933)
Sim v. Pindell
140 Misc. 808 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Foley v. Carter
214 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Pure Oil Co. v. Carter
188 A.D. 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Levy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
95 Misc. 556 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Bien v. National Surety Co.
95 Misc. 194 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Anderson v. A. E. Norton, Inc.
158 N.Y.S. 152 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)