Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle

4 Cow. 16
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1825·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Curia.

We think the case riot distinguishable, in principle, from the ordinary one of allowing, in the final taxation, the costs of motions to change the venue, to refer the cause, or for a commission. If the party incurring these costs succeed, he recovers them as a part of the general costs in the cause ; upon the ground that it is necessary to move the Court. It is so in this case. The defendant must apply to the Court for leave to enter into a special consent rule. Had he been successful upon a trial, these costs would, therefore, be allowed; and a discontinuance of the suit is the same in principle, as to this question.

Rule accordingly.

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

Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle, 4 Cow. 16 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

4 Cow. 16 (Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Billy Mccleary v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
913 F.2d 257 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)