Forstman v. . Schulting
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal by C. Bainbridge Smith, defendant’s attorney, from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made June 1, 1886, the substance of which order, as well as the material facts, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Rugeb, Ch. J.
The appellant is the attorney of the defendant and appeals to this court from an order of the General Term requiring him to return to the plaintiff certain moneys collected of him by said attorney as costs, under an erroneous order. From the quite imperfect statement of the facts in the case we infer that the defendant obtained an order at Special Term awarding him certain costs against the plaintiff which were paid, but upon appeal, the General Term reversed so much of the order as awarded costs, in excess of those allowed upon a motion, and ordered the defendant to repay such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Langley v. . WarnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
3Cited by23 opinions
- Gabrelian v. GabrelianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Matter of LongNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Pincus v. PincusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- In re TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Abrahami v. UPC Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.