Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Martin

68 N.Y.S. 1143

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 68 N.Y.S. 1143 (Martin v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Martin, 68 N.Y.S. 1143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion to amend order, by inserting therein a recital to the effect that the reversal was upon the law and the facts, granted, upon condition that the respondent would pay all the appellant’s costs in the court of appeals before argument, and disbursements incurred since and including the appeal to the court of appeals, provided the appellant elects, within 10 days, to withdraw his appeal; and if the respondent, in case of such election, refuses to pay such costs and disbursements within 1Ó days after notice of the taxation of the same, then said motion is denied, with $10 costs. See 62 N. Y. Supp. 1142.

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

PER CURIAM.

Motion to amend order, by inserting therein a recital to the effect that the reversal was upon the law and the facts, granted, upon condition that the respondent would pay all the appellant’s costs in the court of appeals before argument, and disbursements incurred since and including the appeal to the court of appeals, provided the appellant elects, within 10 days, to withdraw his appeal; and if the respondent, in case of such election, refuses to pay such costs and disbursements within 1Ó days after notice of the taxation of the same, then said motion is denied, with $10 costs. See 62 N. Y. Supp. 1142.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.Y.S. 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-1901.