Corcoran v. . Judson
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of ¡New York. -On the trial, before Mr. Justice Hoffman, without a jury, these facts appeared: The commissioners, appointed under the act of Congress, of March 3d, 1849, to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and Mexico of February 2d, 1848, on the 15th of April, 1851, made an award in favor of the respondent, in the sum of $15,041. The appellant claimed •a part of that sum, to wit: $7,887.50, and notified .the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of ¡New York. -On the trial, before Mr. Justice Hoffman, without a jury, these facts appeared: The commissioners, appointed under the act of Congress, of March 3d, 1849, to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and Mexico of February 2d, 1848, on the 15th of April, 1851, made an award in favor of the respondent, in the sum of $15,041. The appellant claimed •a part of that sum, to wit: $7,887.50, and notified .the Secretary of the Treasury of his intention to contest the payment thereof. In accordance with the provisions of the act,…
1Opinion of the Court
The only point made on the argument is whether counsel fees paid by the plaintiff are covered by the words in the condition of the bond, "costs and damages," I cannot doubt that they are. The bond was to indemnify the plaintiff for the expenses and damages to which he might be subjected by the proposed contestation. It was in contemplation of the defendant to institute legal proceedings, thereby subjecting the plaintiff to costs, and the employment of counsel. He would be necessarily damnified in consequence thereof, to the amount he should be compelled to pay such counsel. It was a damage…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coates v. CoatesThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
3Cited by16 opinions
- Tullock v. MulvaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Bolling v. TateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Newton v. . RussellNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Bishop v. HendrickNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Lamb v. ShawSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.