Moore v. Westervelt
The Superior Court of New York City
Present, Duer, Ch. J., Hoffman, Woodruff and Slosson, Justices. This action was commenced several years ago, and has been several times in the court of appeals, and finally resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on the 14th of March, 1856, for $540, subject to the opinion of the court at general term, and judgment in the meantime suspended.
Read the full summary
Present, Duer, Ch. J., Hoffman, Woodruff and Slosson, Justices. This action was commenced several years ago, and has been several times in the court of appeals, and finally resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on the 14th of March, 1856, for $540, subject to the opinion of the court at general term, and judgment in the meantime suspended. The cause was argued at general term, April 13, 1857, (being twenty-four days before the new fee-bill took effect,) but was not decided until June 20, 1857, when judgment was ordered for plaintiff on the verdict. The amendments to the Code respecting…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—Duer, Ch. Justice.
The court are not satisfied they have power to order judgment nunc pro tunc, as of a date prior to the actual judgment, to enable a party to affect the amount of his costs. The motion is, therefore, denied, without costs. The court, however, are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to have his costs adjusted according to the Code as it existed at the time of the verdict, as respects all items prior to that date. The “ recovery,” which gives the right to costs, mentioned in the statute, means the “ verdict,” and not the judgment. An order may be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Martin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1860
- Scudder v. GoriThe Superior Court of New York City · 1864
- Roberts v. WhiteThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875
- Kapp v. LoynsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1880
- Scudder v. GoriThe Superior Court of New York City · 1864