Martin v. Tarbox

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Tarbox

23 Misc. 761, 51 N.Y.S. 319

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 15, 1898·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from must he affirmed. The statute requires us to award costs where the judgment is affirmed. As both parties have appealed, it seems that while awarding costs against each, we should also provide that they be offset. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent oñ each appeal. The order of affirmance should contain a provision for an offset of the costs. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3.

Present: Beexman, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from must he affirmed. The statute requires us to award costs where the judgment is affirmed. As both parties have appealed, it seems that while awarding costs against each, we should also provide that they be offset. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent oñ each appeal. The order of affirmance should contain a provision for an offset of the costs. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3.

Present: Beexman, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Martin v. Tarbox, 23 Misc. 761, 51 N.Y.S. 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

23 Misc. 761 (Martin v. Tarbox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related