Hayman v. Morris
New York Supreme Court
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
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re the Estate of RothkoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1978
- Wolf v. AtkinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1944
- In re the Estate of PausnerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1980