Legal Opinion
McCarthy v. Anable
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 23, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.
A verdict has been rendered by a jury in favor of the defendants. Costs have been taxed by the defendants. The plaintiffs object to the taxation and apply to review it pursuant to section 1536 of the Civil Practice Act.
Upon the argument it is stated by the attorney for the defendants that the plaintiff John McCarthy, Jr., who, at the time of the institution of the action, was an infant, is now of age and *596that he reached his majority between the first and second trials of the action. There is no proof of this upon the record, although the fact seems to be conceded by the attorney for the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- M. Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Mahoney v. Park Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Lambert v. CorbinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Breese v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Campbell v. BowneNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Flippo v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- In re the Estate of FassigNew York Surrogate's Court · 1968
- Mitchell v. McDonaldMontana Supreme Court · 1943
- O'Leary v. Brown Seal Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969