McEntyre v. Tucker

40 A.D. 444, 58 N.Y.S. 146
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 40 A.D. 444 (McEntyre v. Tucker) 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
McEntyre v. Tucker, 40 A.D. 444, 58 N.Y.S. 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.:

This action was upon a building contract, and was originally brought in the Court of Common Pleas in 1882. A trial was had before the referee appointed by the court and a judgment was entered dismissing the complaint. Upon appeal this judgment was reversed, with costs to the plaintiff to abide the event. A new trial being had, the plaintiff recovered. Upon appeal this judgment was reversed upon the ground that, under the pleadings, the plaintiff could not recover, and costs were awarded to the •defendant to abide the final event. The plaintiff, finding that he could not succeed as the pleadings stand at present, moved the court for leave to amend in a material particular. This motion was granted upon the payment of fifty dollars and ten dollars costs of motion. The defendant thereupon appealed from such order.

It seems to us that the terms upon which the motion was granted were entirely inadequate. It is conceded by the motion that the plaintiff cannot recover in the present form of action. The defendant was, therefore, justified in defending ; and for the costs and disbursements to which he has been put in the establishment of a successful defense, he is entitled to be reimbursed.

It seems to us, therefore, that he is entitled to recover his costs and disbursements for all proceedings subsequent to the service of the complaint, and also to recover the costs and disbursements of appeal where such costs were given to him to abide the event of" the action.

The order should be modified to this extent, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Barrett, Rumsey and Patterson, JJ., concurred.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

O'Hara v. Derschug
154 Misc. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
Kyle v. City of New York
155 A.D. 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Thomas v. Springer
139 A.D. 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Manhattan Rolling Mill v. Dellon
63 Misc. 48 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1909)
Audley v. Townsend
131 A.D. 79 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad
129 A.D. 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Lindblad v. Lynde
81 A.D. 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
People ex rel. McDonald v. Clausen
61 A.D. 184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Bates v. Salt Springs National Bank
43 A.D. 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Fox v. Davidson
58 N.Y.S. 147 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 A.D. 444, 58 N.Y.S. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcentyre-v-tucker-nyappdiv-1899.