Naugatuck Cutlery Co. v. Rowe

5 Abb. N. Cas. 142
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Abb. N. Cas. 142 (Naugatuck Cutlery Co. v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Naugatuck Cutlery Co. v. Rowe, 5 Abb. N. Cas. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

It is not necessary on this motion to inquire whether the case of Muller n. Higgins (44 How. Pr. 224), was correctly decided. This motion must be disposed of under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the verdict having been rendered in October last. Section 999 of the present code treats the motion made upon a judge’s minutes for a new trial, where no formal case has been prepared, simply as a motion; and it would seem to follow, that on the granting or the denial of such motion, only motion costs can be allowed. The granting of the costs on a motion is in the discretion of the judge before whom the cause was tried. The allowance of a trial fee by the clerk was therefore erroneous, and the fee must be stricken out. Leave, however, is granted to apply to the justice who tried the cause, for costs of motion.

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

Related

Hadley v. Pethcal
24 N.Y.S. 803 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Abb. N. Cas. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naugatuck-cutlery-co-v-rowe-nysupct-1878.