Lorton v. Seaman
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to compel the payment of the costs of an interlocutory motion allowing the defendants $. Seaman and H. Seaman to put in an answer to the complainants’ bill, and directing them to pay the costs of entering the order to take the bill as confessed and of opposing their application.
Read the full summary
This was an application to compel the payment of the costs of an interlocutory motion allowing the defendants $. Seaman and H. Seaman to put in an answer to the complainants’ bill, and directing them to pay the costs of entering the order to take the bill as confessed and of opposing their application. By a mistake of the register, or the inadvertence of the court, the order, instead of making the payment of the costs a condition of the opening of the default, authorized the defendants to put in an answer, and merely ordered them to pay the costs of opening the default, &c. The costs were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The mistake in the entry of the order, if there was one, was waived by the filing of the replication to the answer. And the only remedy that now remains to the complainants, to obtain the payment of their costs, is by proceeding against the defendants as for a contempt, for the non-payment. The question then arises whether a demand of the costs made upon the solicitor in the cause is sufficient. In a certain class of cases a personal service is not necessary to bring a party into contempt for disobeying an order of the court. (Merritt v. Annan, 7 Paige’s Rep. 151.) But in…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Graham v. BleakieNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1866
- Potter v. Emerson-Steuben Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1937
- Mitchell v. WesterveltNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Sutton v. SuttonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Eckerson v. SpoorNew York Supreme Court · 1850
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.