Tae Troy City Bank v. Grant

New York Supreme Court

Tae Troy City Bank v. Grant

1 How. Pr. 135

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1845

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 How. Pr. 135 (Tae Troy City Bank v. Grant) 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

Tae Troy City Bank v. Grant, 1 How. Pr. 135 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Bronson, Chief Justice.

One third the amount of attorney and coun[136]*136sel fees as taxed must be deducted. We have always held that the “ recovery” within the meaning of the act regulating costs, is the recovery for damages. If the plaintiff gets interest on his verdict, it is by taxation as costs. The verdict must govern, nnd the circumstance that proceedings have been stayed by case or bill of exceptions makes no difference.

Rule, deducting one-third attorney and counsel fee.

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

Bronson, Chief Justice.

One third the amount of attorney and coun[136]*136sel fees as taxed must be deducted. We have always held that the “ recovery” within the meaning of the act regulating costs, is the recovery for damages. If the plaintiff gets interest on his verdict, it is by taxation as costs. The verdict must govern, nnd the circumstance that proceedings have been stayed by case or bill of exceptions makes no difference.

Rule, deducting one-third attorney and counsel fee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tae-troy-city-bank-v-grant-nysupct-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack