Tranter v. Tranter

189 A.D. 714, 178 N.Y.S. 521, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 A.D. 714 (Tranter v. Tranter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tranter v. Tranter, 189 A.D. 714, 178 N.Y.S. 521, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

The defendant appeals from the part of the interlocutory judgment for absolute divorce against him that orders him to [715]*715pay $150 “ as and for an extra allowance of costs and counsel fee herein.” When plaintiff moved for confirmation of the referee’s report, she also moved for an extra allowance of counsel fee and costs.

The general rule is that the basis of a counsel fee is necessity prospective at the time of the application. The courts have awarded such fees to discharge past obligations when it has seemed necessary to carry on the action. (Beadleston v. Beadleston, 103 N. Y. 402; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 137 id. 500.) It is not asserted that there was any necessity at the time of the application such as is contemplated by the rules. It is stated that if the application for confirmation of the referee’s report is successful, the attorney for the plaintiff will be required to prepare the interlocutory and the final decree, but nothing more. We think that the judgment in so far as appealed from must be modified by strildng therefrom the provision for $150 as an extra allowance and for counsel fee, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

Interlocutory judgment in so far as appealed from modified by striking out the provision for $150 as an extra allowance and for counsel fee, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Sokolow v. Sokolow
28 Misc. 2d 962 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Nottingham v. Nottingham
209 A.D. 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Stillman v. Stillman
199 A.D. 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Kaufmann v. Kaufmann
76 Pa. Super. 603 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 A.D. 714, 178 N.Y.S. 521, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tranter-v-tranter-nyappdiv-1919.