Crippen v. Brown
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application, on the part of the complainant, for a re-taxation of the costs of the defendants^ solicitor, upon the dismissal of the complainant’s bill with costs.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The retaining fee to counsel, as well as to the solicitor, was properly taxed) as the solicitor swears that counsel other than himself was actually retained in the cause ; and the charge for counsel perusing and signing the answer is also taxable, under the present fee bill) although the counsel whose name alone is affixed was the solicitor in the cause. The decision on this subject, in the case of Rogers v. Rogers, (2 Paige's Rep. 472,) was Under the fee bill of 1818, which made no allowance for this service where it was done by counsel who was the solicitor in the cause. In…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re ClappNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Rosen v. Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1945