People v. Honsenfratts
New York Supreme Court
The defendant was lessor of the plaintiff in ejectment, entered into the consent rule, and the verdict and judgment were against James Jackson, the nominal plaintiff. Hereupon the defendant’s attorney issued a ca. sa. against James Jackson, for the costs, which was shewn to Honsenfratts, the lessor, who was shewn, at the same time, the original consent rule, and served with a copy thereof by one who had a written authority from the defendant’s attorney to receive the costs.
Read the full summary
The defendant was lessor of the plaintiff in ejectment, entered into the consent rule, and the verdict and judgment were against James Jackson, the nominal plaintiff. Hereupon the defendant’s attorney issued a ca. sa. against James Jackson, for the costs, which was shewn to Honsenfratts, the lessor, who was shewn, at the same time, the original consent rule, and served with a copy thereof by one who had a written authority from the defendant’s attorney to receive the costs. He demanded the costs of Honsenfratts upon these papers, and they not being paid, an attachment was issued, which being…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The defendant must be discharged. The plaintiffs have proceeded irregularly. The lessor of the plaintiff should also have been served with a taxed bill of the costs, by shewing him the original and delivering a copy, before moving for the attachment-
Rule accordingly.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ceridian Corporation v. Scsc CorpCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- Alston v. AlstonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1873
- Gibbons v. GoodrichAppellate Court of Illinois · 1878
- Ursula Leon Hernandez v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc., et al.District Court, S.D. California · 2026
- Ursula Leon Hernandez v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc., et al.District Court, S.D. California · 2026