Latham v. Bliss & Childs
The Superior Court of New York City
Before Oaklet, Ch. J., Boswoeth, Hoffman and Slosson, Justices. The defendants were sued as the maker'and indorser of a promissory note: they appeared by different attorneys arid answered separately. On the 29th of November, 1856, after the action had been noticed for the December term, and a note of issue had been filed, the parties settled. By the terms of the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff “ the legal costs of the action.”
Read the full summary
Before Oaklet, Ch. J., Boswoeth, Hoffman and Slosson, Justices. The defendants were sued as the maker'and indorser of a promissory note: they appeared by different attorneys arid answered separately. On the 29th of November, 1856, after the action had been noticed for the December term, and a note of issue had been filed, the parties settled. By the terms of the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff “ the legal costs of the action.” The plaintiff made up a separate bill of costs against each defendant, and each bill was the same amount. The clerk.adjusted and allowed one…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—Bosworth, Justice.
" The legal costs of the action,” which the defendants agreed to pay, means such costs as the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover, if a judgment had been entered in his favor at the time of the settlement without a trial. Section 304 is explicit—that if a maker and indorser of a promissory note are separately sued, the plaintiff shall recover but one bill of costs, and the disbursements in the other action.
There is nothing in the Code which favors the idea that, when they are sued together, the plaintiff may collect full costs of the action of each. He…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ritter v. BrackNew York Supreme Court · 1927