Neugrosche v. Manhattan Railway Co.

City of New York Municipal Court

Neugrosche v. Manhattan Railway Co.

1 N.Y. St. Rep. 302

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided June 15, 1886·Published

Opinion

Hyatt, J.

The order in forma pauperis not having been served, should have been presented to the clerk in opposition to the taxation of defendant’s costs. Not having been ' called to the attention of the defendant’s attorney in any form, their practice in entering judgment was not irregular. The proof is that this case was twice called on the calendar when it was reached, and no appearance having been made by the plaintiff the defendant handed up the notice of trial and had the complaint dismissed.

The default will be opened as a matter of favor, however, on payment, within five days, of twelve dollars costs to the defendant’s attorney. 1 Oiv. Pro. Rep., 131.

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

Hyatt, J.

The order in forma pauperis not having been served, should have been presented to the clerk in opposition to the taxation of defendant’s costs. Not having been ' called to the attention of the defendant’s attorney in any form, their practice in entering judgment was not irregular. The proof is that this case was twice called on the calendar when it was reached, and no appearance having been made by the plaintiff the defendant handed up the notice of trial and had the complaint dismissed.

The default will be opened as a matter of favor, however, on payment, within five days, of twelve dollars costs to the defendant’s attorney. 1 Oiv. Pro. Rep., 131.

Neugrosche v. Manhattan Railway Co., 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 302 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

1 N.Y. St. Rep. 302 (Neugrosche v. Manhattan Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.