Norton v. Rich
New York Supreme Court
WEJYDELL moved for an attachment for the non-payment of costs, against Selden and Post, to whom Norton, the plaintiff, had assigned a demand against Rich, for which a suit 111 , _ . had been brought in the name or J\. against R. and on a report of referees, a judgment was given in favour of R. against N. for 35 dollars.
Read the full summary
WEJYDELL moved for an attachment for the non-payment of costs, against Selden and Post, to whom Norton, the plaintiff, had assigned a demand against Rich, for which a suit 111 , _ . had been brought in the name or J\. against R. and on a report of referees, a judgment was given in favour of R. against N. for 35 dollars. The affidavits stated that Norton was insolvent, and that the costs had been regularly taxed and demanded of the assignees of N.} who had refused to pay the bill.
1Per curiam 1
That is a remedy which the party may have pending the suit; but he is, also, entitled to an attachment, after a judgment in his favour. The motion must be granted.
Mitchell objected, that items had been taxed in the bill for costs, on making a motion to change the venue in the
CBtiSG*
2Per curiam 2
Although costs are not given on a motion *476to change the venue in a cause, yet they abide the event, an(j the party may have them taxed, when final judgment is signed.
Motion granted.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. AdsitNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Boyce v. BatesNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- O'Connell v. GavettSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
- Davenport v. City of ElizabethSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1881
- Hallett v. HastieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.