Powell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.

New York Supreme Court

Powell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.

3 N.Y.S. 763

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 763 (Powell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.) 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

Powell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 3 N.Y.S. 763 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Merwin, J.

The controversy on this motion is over term fees in the court -of appeals. This case was placed on the calendar of the court of appeals that was made up in May, 1886, and it there remained until it was argued, in De•eember, 1887. It was, therefore, on but one calendar. The eases on this subject are not harmonious. Palmer v. Dewitt, 42 How. Pr. 466; Macy v. Nelson, 49 How. Pr. 204; Whiteman v. Leslie, 1 Month. Law Bul. 58. There ■seems to have been no formal assignment of terms in that court. I am informed by its clerk that it holds one term a year, commencing with the January session, and continuing through the year. If so, the time of making the • calendar does not control. I think the term fees must be regulated on the basis that there is one term, and only one, each year. JIhat will allow, in the present case, one term fee. Code Civil Proc. § 3251, subd. 5.

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

Merwin, J.

The controversy on this motion is over term fees in the court -of appeals. This case was placed on the calendar of the court of appeals that was made up in May, 1886, and it there remained until it was argued, in De•eember, 1887. It was, therefore, on but one calendar. The eases on this subject are not harmonious. Palmer v. Dewitt, 42 How. Pr. 466; Macy v. Nelson, 49 How. Pr. 204; Whiteman v. Leslie, 1 Month. Law Bul. 58. There ■seems to have been no formal assignment of terms in that court. I am informed by its clerk that it holds one term a year, commencing with the January session, and continuing through the year. If so, the time of making the • calendar does not control. I think the term fees must be regulated on the basis that there is one term, and only one, each year. JIhat will allow, in the present case, one term fee. Code Civil Proc. § 3251, subd. 5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-new-york-cent-h-r-r-co-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack