Legal Opinion

Mack v. McCullock

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1846PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion by defendant for double costs. This was an action of replevin against the defendant as a general deputy sheriff In February last judgment as in case of nonsuit was obtained by defendant, and the value of the property assessed upon a writ of inquiry.

Read the full summary

Motion by defendant for double costs. This was an action of replevin against the defendant as a general deputy sheriff In February last judgment as in case of nonsuit was obtained by defendant, and the value of the property assessed upon a writ of inquiry. Plaintiff’s counsel objected: 1st, that no motion for double costs was *necessary; that defendant’s notice showed him to be an officer, and the pleadings should have been presented to the taxing officer, and double costs taxed of course. 2d, he should not ask for costs of this motion, and, if any, only single costs.

1Opinion of the Court

.Beardsley, Justice.

This application was necessary, and of course carries costs, but single only.

Motion granted with $10 costs.

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wood v. Board of Commissioners of Excise of the Town of RandolphNew York Supreme Court · 1894