Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle

4 Cow. 16

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1825

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Cow. 16 (Jackson ex rel. Prindle v. Lytle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

65 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 959, 29 fed.r.serv.3d 821 Peter McKenna Greg Spina Jack Ricciardi John Oliver Andrew Hennessey Al Armetta Pincus Cohen Dave Quaid Adam Lukasweski William Harper Dorrance A. Lindh John Gugliotta George Whitehead John Shea Anthony Nazare Robert Tighe Dennis McCarthy Richard Montacalvo Jeanette McCafferty George Martin Ralph Fernandez Paul Noethe Patricia Burwitz Michael Demone Eddie Dechert Salvatore Petruzzelli Phyllis Lindh Joseph K. Pfeil v. Pacific Rail Service, Pacific Rail Service, Nos. 93-5253 and 93-5385. Peter McKenna Greg Spina Jack Ricciardi John Oliver Andrew Hennessey Al Armetta Pincus Cohen Dave Quaid Adam Lukasweski William Harper Dorrance A. Lindh John Gugliotta George Whitehead John Shea Anthony Nazare Robert Tighe Dennis McCarthy Richard Montacalvo Jeanette McCafferty George Martin Ralph Fernandez Paul Noethe Patricia Burwitz Michael Demone Eddie Dechert Salvatore Petruzzelli Phyllis Lindh Joseph K. Pfeil v. Pacific Rail Service, Peter McKenna Greg Spina Jack Ricciardi John Oliver Andrew Hennessey Al Armetta Pincus Cohen Dave Quaid Adam Lukasweski William Harper Dorrance A. Lindh John Gugliotta George Whitehead John Shea Anthony Nazare Robert Tighe Dennis McCarthy Richard Montacalvo Jeanette McCafferty George Martin Ralph Fernandez Paul Noethe Patricia Burwitz Michael Demone Eddie Dechert Salvatore Petruzzelli Phyllis Lindh Joseph K. Pfeil, Nos. 93-5277 and 93-5386

32 F.3d 820 (Third Circuit, 1994)

Billy Mccleary v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

913 F.2d 257 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cow. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-rel-prindle-v-lytle-nysupct-1825.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack