Lyman v. Young Men's Cosmopolitan Club & Fidelity & Deposit Co.

New York Supreme Court

Lyman v. Young Men's Cosmopolitan Club & Fidelity & Deposit Co.

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 410

DecidedDecember 24, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 410 (Lyman v. Young Men's Cosmopolitan Club & Fidelity & Deposit Co.) 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

Lyman v. Young Men's Cosmopolitan Club & Fidelity & Deposit Co., 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 410 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

While it is true that the only papers which can be used on a motion for a retaxation by the clerk are those which were before the clerk, as the plaintiff in obtaining the order to show cause herein used affidavits not before the clerk, to-wit, the joint affidavit of Messrs. Page and Sanford and the affidavit of Mr. Scott, each dated December 12, 1898, in which the ground on which the clerk adjusted the costs is stated, I think that the [411]*411defendants were entitled to read affidavits in reply. If this view, however, is erroneous there is enough before the court to show that the clerk’s adjustment was correct, and the taxation in these cases should be affirmed on the merits, and the motion for a retaxation should be denied with $10 costs to the defendants, in each case. (See Comly v. The Mayor, etc., 1 Civil Pro. Rep. 317, per Barrett, J.)

Settle the order on one day’s notice.

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

Lawrence, J.

While it is true that the only papers which can be used on a motion for a retaxation by the clerk are those which were before the clerk, as the plaintiff in obtaining the order to show cause herein used affidavits not before the clerk, to-wit, the joint affidavit of Messrs. Page and Sanford and the affidavit of Mr. Scott, each dated December 12, 1898, in which the ground on which the clerk adjusted the costs is stated, I think that the [411]*411defendants were entitled to read affidavits in reply. If this view, however, is erroneous there is enough before the court to show that the clerk’s adjustment was correct, and the taxation in these cases should be affirmed on the merits, and the motion for a retaxation should be denied with $10 costs to the defendants, in each case. (See Comly v. The Mayor, etc., 1 Civil Pro. Rep. 317, per Barrett, J.)

Settle the order on one day’s notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyman-v-young-mens-cosmopolitan-club-fidelity-deposit-co-nysupct-1898.