Jones v. Newton

New York Supreme Court

Jones v. Newton

11 N.Y.S. 510, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 823, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202

DecidedOctober 24, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 510 (Jones v. Newton) 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

Jones v. Newton, 11 N.Y.S. 510, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 823, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.

The objections which are urged against the taxation ■of costs relate to the item of referee’s fees. The referee seems to have been appointed to take and state the accounts of an assignee. It would appear that only five claims of creditors were filed with the referee, and they having been filed on four different days he has charged for four hearings. It is clear that such a charge is not authorized by the Code. The mere filing of a paper with .a referee in these proceedings cannot be considered a hearing. Jt is true that the referee says he examined each claim when it was received; but whether he spent one or two minutes in the reception and examination of the claims he does not state. These claims do not appear to have been contested, or to have been of any peculiar character, and thus we may safely assume that not more than one minute of the referee’s time was consumed upon each of these days. Exception is taken to the referee’s charge when there were adjournments. We see no objection to such charge. The referee had set apart this •time- for this reference. He was there ready to proceed; and if the parties ■chose to postpone it was not his fault. Wé find charges as for full hearings when the referee examined any papers. This cannot be allowed. These papers would seem to have been offered in evidence at a single hearing. All but one appear to have been before the referee at his office, because he especially mentions having examined this at the clerk’s office, and 15 days are charged for the examination of evidence and preparation of report upon evidence offered at two hearings. This appears to be too much sack for so little bread. Allowing every presumption in favor of the referee, we do not see how an allowance for more than 13 meetings can possibly be made. The ■taxation should therefore be.reduced to $78, and-affirmed for that amount.

All concur.

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

Van Brunt, P. J.

The objections which are urged against the taxation ■of costs relate to the item of referee’s fees. The referee seems to have been appointed to take and state the accounts of an assignee. It would appear that only five claims of creditors were filed with the referee, and they having been filed on four different days he has charged for four hearings. It is clear that such a charge is not authorized by the Code. The mere filing of a paper with .a referee in these proceedings cannot be considered a hearing. Jt is true that the referee says he examined each claim when it was received; but whether he spent one or two minutes in the reception and examination of the claims he does not state. These claims do not appear to have been contested, or to have been of any peculiar character, and thus we may safely assume that not more than one minute of the referee’s time was consumed upon each of these days. Exception is taken to the referee’s charge when there were adjournments. We see no objection to such charge. The referee had set apart this •time- for this reference. He was there ready to proceed; and if the parties ■chose to postpone it was not his fault. Wé find charges as for full hearings when the referee examined any papers. This cannot be allowed. These papers would seem to have been offered in evidence at a single hearing. All but one appear to have been before the referee at his office, because he especially mentions having examined this at the clerk’s office, and 15 days are charged for the examination of evidence and preparation of report upon evidence offered at two hearings. This appears to be too much sack for so little bread. Allowing every presumption in favor of the referee, we do not see how an allowance for more than 13 meetings can possibly be made. The ■taxation should therefore be.reduced to $78, and-affirmed for that amount.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 510, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 823, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-newton-nysupct-1890.