Lissberger v. Schoenberg Metal Co.

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 158
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedJune 15, 1885
StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 158 (Lissberger v. Schoenberg Metal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lissberger v. Schoenberg Metal Co., 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 158 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1885).

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

The cases reported in 62 How. Pr. 180, and 66 How. Pr. 342, sustain the claim of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to the allowance not only on the plaintiff’s recovery, but on the counter-claim which was extinguished. Those ca^es certainly place a very liberal construction on the rule in regard to allowances to counsel, but as I must accept them as a correct interpretation of the law, it follows that- the plaintiffs are entitled to have their allowance taxed in conformity to these decisions. The clerk will be ordered to retax accordingly.

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

Related

Woonsocket Rubber Co. v. Rubber Clothing Co.
62 How. Pr. 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)
Barclay v. Culver
66 How. Pr. 342 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lissberger-v-schoenberg-metal-co-nynyccityct-1885.