Schermerhorn v. Noble
Opinion
There is no ground under the practice for a long time well settled to entitle the defendant’s attorney to more than $10 costs in all the causes. .These motions were in fact, as it was proper that they should have been, consolidated; the same person is plaintiff in each cause, and although the defendants are different, the attorneys in each cause are the same; the motion made in each is upon the same grounds, 'and is supported by the same facts. The defendant’s attorney has lost nothing by consolidating the motions, for if- they had been sustained by a set of papers in each case, no more than $10 could have been allowed him for all the motions, as it would have been unnecessary that each motion should have been sustained by a distinct set of papers. (Jackson v. Keller, 18 John. 310; Jackson v. Clark, 4 Cowen, 532; Jackson v. Garnsey, 3 id. 385; Jerome v. Boeram, 1 Wend. 293.)
Ordered accordingly.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Denio 682 (Schermerhorn v. Noble) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.