Shattuck v. Chamberlin

4 Cow. 14
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1825·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The offer to pay costs was insufficient, as being made to the defendant’s counsel. It should have been to the attorney. He, alone, is in general able to know the amount of the costs, and authorized to receive them. The motion must be. granted, ¡unless the plaintiff stipulate.

Rule accordingly.

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

Shattuck v. Chamberlin, 4 Cow. 14 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

4 Cow. 14 (Shattuck v. Chamberlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jose Alfredo Carrillo-Espinoza
24 F.3d 250 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)