M. J. Brandenstein & Co. v. Castano
District Court, S.D. New York
At Law. Action by M. J. Brandenstein & Co. against Nicolas Castaño. On motion by defendant to increase plaintiffs’ attachment bond.
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
The sheriff’s poundage and the premium are certainly to be included in the bond. To-day the giving of a surety company bond is a regular course of procedure, a proper incident of every action, and the premium is a cost of the attachment. The only question is of counsel fees.
It is obvious that no motion to vacate the attachment would have been of any service to the defendant, a nonresident. Nothing can therefore turn upon his failure so to move. The case seems, therefore, to depend barely upon whether counsel fees in defending an action should be included in the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Tullock v. MulvaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. L. Bucki & Son Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Tyng v. . American Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Northampton National Bank v. WylieNew York Supreme Court · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. Banco Do Brasil, S. A.New York Supreme Court · 1966
- T. W. Warner Co. v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Dean v. James McHugh Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Brendan Chartering Corp. v. Fos Shipping Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1974
- General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. R. C. Maxwell Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934