Patchin v. Parkhurst

New York Supreme Court

Patchin v. Parkhurst

9 Wend. 443

DecidedOctober 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Wend. 443 (Patchin v. Parkhurst) 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

Patchin v. Parkhurst, 9 Wend. 443 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Until the revised statutes, the practice, it is believed, has been, whore a party was entitled to recover double or treble costs, to double or treble the amount of the common costs, and certify the bill accordingly. The legislature have now defined what they mean by allowing double costs, viz. the common costs and one half thereof in addition, adopting the mode of computation common in England. The samo principle applied to treble costs, entitles the party, 1. To common costs; 2. To half of these and then ixaif of the latter, or seventy five per cent, added to the common costs. There must therefore be a relaxation in this cause.

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

By the Court.

Until the revised statutes, the practice, it is believed, has been, whore a party was entitled to recover double or treble costs, to double or treble the amount of the common costs, and certify the bill accordingly. The legislature have now defined what they mean by allowing double costs, viz. the common costs and one half thereof in addition, adopting the mode of computation common in England. The samo principle applied to treble costs, entitles the party, 1. To common costs; 2. To half of these and then ixaif of the latter, or seventy five per cent, added to the common costs. There must therefore be a relaxation in this cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Wend. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patchin-v-parkhurst-nysupct-1832.