Martin v. Tarbox
This text of 23 Misc. 761 (Martin v. Tarbox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 Misc. 761, 51 N.Y.S. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-tarbox-nyappterm-1898.