Northrop v. Van Dusen

5 How. Pr. 134
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 How. Pr. 134 (Northrop v. Van Dusen) 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
Northrop v. Van Dusen, 5 How. Pr. 134 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1850).

Opinion

Parker, Justice.

Crippen vs. Ingersoll (10 Wend. R. 603), is decisive on the point that under a general clause in a notice asking for other and further relief, the party can not take costs of motion. The order of 27th August is therefore irregular, and so much of it as provides costs must be set aside.

The order did not give costs absolutely as in the case cited. It only provided what the law would have given without an entry [135]*135in the order under the late practice, and what would have been allowed if asked for in the notice, whether the motion was granted or denied. For these reasons, considering the unsettled state of the practice and that this question is for the first time presented, I think no costs of this motion should be allowed.

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

Related

Smith v. Fleischman
17 A.D. 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 How. Pr. 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrop-v-van-dusen-nysupct-1850.