Howitt v. Merrill
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court, affirming an order denying a motion to vacate the satisfaction of judgment; in. the action to the extent of the attorney’s costs. .
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
On the 24th day of May, 1881, the plaintiff, by Van Name, his attorney of record, obtained judgment against the defendant for $230 damages and $107.86 costs and disbursements. On the 14th of April, 1882, the defendant paid the plaintiff $150, and took from him a satisfaction piece. Both plaintiff and defendant refuse to pay the attorney his costs in this action, and the attorney in his own behalf moved the court to set aside “ the satisfaction of the judgment to the extent of the costs and disbursements.” At special term the motion was opposed by affidavits and was denied by the court. Upon…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Williams v. . IngersollNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Risley v. . Phenix Bank of City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Adler v. FentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Veeder v. . BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.