Legal Opinion

Hayman v. Morris

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1942PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEder, J.

I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs’ contention, that but a single bill of costs may be allowed, is untenable. It is also my view that the defendant Miller is’entitled to a separate bill of costs. A separate answer was served by the defendant Tucker, who appeared by Mr. Taylor as his attorney. The other defendants united in a single answer, in which defendant Miller joined, and appeared by Mr. Rothschild as their attorney; later Mr. MacIntyre was substituted as attorney for the defendant Miller.

The costs which were awarded to the defendants were granted in the exercise of discretion.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of RothkoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1978
  2. Wolf v. AtkinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1944
  3. In re the Estate of PausnerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API