Mattes v. Pause

19 N.Y.S. 222, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 446, 22 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 41
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedMarch 26, 1892
StatusPublished

This text of 19 N.Y.S. 222 (Mattes v. Pause) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mattes v. Pause, 19 N.Y.S. 222, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 446, 22 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 41 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Opinion

Gieqerioh, J.

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure respecting costs (chapter 21, tits. Í-3) apply to actions tried in one of the courts specified in subdivision 4 of section 3347, namely, the supreme court, a superior city court, the marine court of the city of New York, ora county court, (Code Civil Proc. § 3347, subd. 13;1) and are not limited to actions commenced in one of such courts, and triable therein, (Combs v. Combs, 25 Hun, 279, reversing 1 Civil Proc. R. 298; 62 How. Pr. 304') It follows that the costs of this action, which was originally brought in a district court of this city to recover damages for a personal injury, and removed to this court, must be awarded and taxed pursuant to the above-cited provisions of the Code. The eases cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, namely, Druckenmiller v. Sho[223]*223ninger, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 8 N. Y. Supp. 482; Latteman v. Fere, 11 Civil Proc. R. 217; Salter v. Parkhurst, 2 Daly, 240,—have no application, as they merely relate to the status of an action commenced in a district court after its removal to this court. The plaintiff having recovered less than $50, she defendants are entitled to costs. Kaliski v. Railroad Co., (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 519, (Daly, C. J.;) Rieger v. Watch Case Co., (City Ct. Brook.) 13 N. Y. Supp. 788. The application of the plaintiff for a retaxation of the costs must therefore be denied.

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

Related

Combs v. Combs
62 How. Pr. 304 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)
Druckenmiller v. Shoninger
8 N.Y.S. 482 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1890)
Kaliski v. Pelham Park Railroad
15 N.Y.S. 519 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)
Salter v. Parkhurst
2 Daly 240 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1867)
Rieger v. Fahys Watch-Case Co.
13 N.Y.S. 788 (New York City Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 N.Y.S. 222, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 446, 22 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattes-v-pause-nyctcompl-1892.