Slocum v. Watkins

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Slocum v. Watkins

1 Denio 631

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedSeptember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Denio 631 (Slocum v. Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slocum v. Watkins, 1 Denio 631 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

The referee had power to impose the payment of costs as a condition to granting the adjournment, which power he exercised by making it a condition that they should be paid. The defendant not being prepared to make payment as required by the order, his attorney stipulated that they should be paid when taxed. The referee had a right to require payment or such a stipulation. (Butler v. Bates, 5 Hill, 375.) The defendant having refused to pay after taxation and a demand, the motion should be granted with costs.

Motion granted.

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

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

The referee had power to impose the payment of costs as a condition to granting the adjournment, which power he exercised by making it a condition that they should be paid. The defendant not being prepared to make payment as required by the order, his attorney stipulated that they should be paid when taxed. The referee had a right to require payment or such a stipulation. (Butler v. Bates, 5 Hill, 375.) The defendant having refused to pay after taxation and a demand, the motion should be granted with costs.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Denio 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slocum-v-watkins-nycterr-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack