Ireland v. Harlam

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ireland v. Harlam

88 N.Y.S. 990

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 990 (Ireland v. Harlam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ireland v. Harlam, 88 N.Y.S. 990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The record is quite incomplete and unsatisfactory, but it sufficiently appears that defendant’s motion for a new trial was made upon a case and exceptions duly made and settled, and the order granting the motion so recites. The case is thus brought within the decision of Atkinson v. Truesdell (Super. N. Y.) 7 N. Y. Supp. 801; and, upon defendant’s final success in the action, the costs allowed for malting and serving a case, before argument and for argument, were properly taxable under section 3351 of the Code. No different result is called for by reason of the fact that upon the said motion the defendant also obtained leave to file a supplemental and amended answer, and that, as a condition for granting the motion, he was required to pay to the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action as taxed in the judgment roll which he did pay.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The record is quite incomplete and unsatisfactory, but it sufficiently appears that defendant’s motion for a new trial was made upon a case and exceptions duly made and settled, and the order granting the motion so recites. The case is thus brought within the decision of Atkinson v. Truesdell (Super. N. Y.) 7 N. Y. Supp. 801; and, upon defendant’s final success in the action, the costs allowed for malting and serving a case, before argument and for argument, were properly taxable under section 3351 of the Code. No different result is called for by reason of the fact that upon the said motion the defendant also obtained leave to file a supplemental and amended answer, and that, as a condition for granting the motion, he was required to pay to the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action as taxed in the judgment roll which he did pay.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ireland-v-harlam-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack