Waring v. Acker

1 Hill & Den. 673
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1841·Published

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson, J.

The case cited was decided on the old statute which gave double costs to an officer in certain specified actions, among which replevin was not included; but the present statute gives increased costs to an officer without any reference to the form of the action. (2 R. S. 617, § 24.) Such costs may now be recovered in replevin as well as in other actions.

But the plaintiff must prevail on the other point. The [674] statute only gives increased costs, in cases where judgment is rendered for the officer upon verdict, demurrer, nonsuit, non-pros, or discontinuance. It does not extend to costs upon special motions in the progress of the cause. (Rider v. Hubbell, 4 Wendell, 201.) From that case and others there cited, it will be seen, that double costs are only allowed in the cases particularly specified in the. statute.

Motion granted.

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

Waring v. Acker, 1 Hill & Den. 673 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1841).

1 Hill & Den. 673 (Waring v. Acker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rider v. Hubbell
4 Wend. 201 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)