Norton v. Rich

20 Johns. 475
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

That is a remedy which the party may have pending the suit; but he is, also, entitled to an attachment, after a judgment in his favour. The motion must be granted.

Mitchell objected, that items had been taxed in the bill for costs, on making a motion to change the venue in the

CBtiSG*

Per Curiam.

Although costs are not given on a motion [476] to change the venue in a cause, yet they abide the event, an(j the party may have them taxed, when final judgment is signed.

Motion granted.

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

Norton v. Rich, 20 Johns. 475 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

20 Johns. 475 (Norton v. Rich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hiscock v. Tuck
122 A.D. 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
O'Connell v. Gavett
7 Colo. 40 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1883)
Davenport v. City of Elizabeth
43 N.J.L. 149 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1881)
Hallett v. Hastie
35 Ala. 164 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Boyce v. Bates
8 How. Pr. 495 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Miller v. Adsit
18 Wend. 353 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)