Sweet v. Chapman

53 How. Pr. 253
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 How. Pr. 253 (Sweet v. Chapman) 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
Sweet v. Chapman, 53 How. Pr. 253 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1877).

Opinion

Hardin, J.

A trial is defined to be “ the judicial examination of the issue.” An argument takes place prior to a judicial decision of the issues in a case. There had been an argument and decision. Costs were allowable, and properly taxed and paid. They were paid “for argument of the appeal,” the judgment was affirmed, the costs paid, and, of course, the plaintiff satisfied.

But upon defendant’s application a reargument was ordered. He it was who imposed the labor of a reargument that took place, and the court thereupon reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, with costs to abide the event. The court expressly ordered the costs to abide. That, of course^ covered statutory costs to the successful party.

By subdivision 1 of section 306 of the Code, the costs of an appeal are in the discretion of the court when a new trial is ordered. The discretion was, therefore, properly exercised by the general term when it reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The plaintiff would have no compensation for the reargument if this item was not allowed (3 Den., 259, and note; 1 How., 236; 2 Hill, 357).

The motion must be denied, but as the question is novel, without costs of the motion to either party.

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

Related

Crane v. Odegard
96 N.W. 326 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Miller v. King
32 A.D. 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 How. Pr. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-chapman-nysupct-1877.