Miller v. Clary

133 N.Y.S. 1101, 147 A.D. 267
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. Clary. Read the opinion of the Court — 127 N.Y.S. 897
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 8, 1912·Published

Opinion

CLARK, J.

This motion should be granted, for the case was both difficult and extraordinary, not only because of the intricate questions of law involved, but also because of the intricate and unusual questions of fact which were involved in this litigation. Code Civ. Proc. § 3253; American Fruit Product Co. v. Ward, 113 App. Div. 324, 99 N. Y. Supp. 717.

The $10,000 counterclaim, which was set up by defendants Clary, and litigated and disallowed, and also the easements to which plaintiff was adjudged to be entitled, would each furnish a proper basis for an additional allowance, and under the circumstances and considering the unusual and intricate questions involved, here, I think an additional allowance to plaintiff of $500 is just and reasonable.

An order may be entered accordingly.

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

Miller v. Clary, 133 N.Y.S. 1101, 147 A.D. 267 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1912).

133 N.Y.S. 1101 (Miller v. Clary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Fruit Product Co. v. Ward
113 A.D. 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)