People ex rel. Berry v. Herkimer C. P.
New York Supreme Court
Motion for a mandamus. In March, 1829, a judgment was obtained against the relator before a justice for #50 damages and #5 costs. He appealed, and on the trial of the cause in the common pleas in February last, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for #32,10 damages. The appellant entered a rule for costs, which were taxed at #44,65, and a judgment was entered in his favor for the balance.
Read the full summary
Motion for a mandamus. In March, 1829, a judgment was obtained against the relator before a justice for #50 damages and #5 costs. He appealed, and on the trial of the cause in the common pleas in February last, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for #32,10 damages. The appellant entered a rule for costs, which were taxed at #44,65, and a judgment was entered in his favor for the balance. The common pleas vacated the rule for costs entered by the appellant and gave costs to the appellee. A mandamus was now asked for to vacate the order of the common pleas.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Marcy, J.
The amount recovered before the justice against the appellant being reduced by the verdict in the common pleas ten dollars and more, the appellant is entitled to the costs of the appeal, (2 R. S. 263, § 218,) notwithstanding that the appeal was made previous to the Revised Statutes going into effect. Those statutes take up the proceedings in causes pending where they find them, and where the statutes under which the proceedings were commenced are repealed, the subsequent proceedings must be regulated by the Revised Statutes. Under, the statute by virtue of which the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Supervisors of Onondaga v. BriggsNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- People ex rel. Fleming v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- March v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- People ex rel. Thorne v. HaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Hunt v. MiddlebrookNew York Supreme Court · 1857
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.