Hoffman v. Skinner
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application for the retaxation of a bill of costs, which the defendants were directed to pay to the complainant’s solicitor. The costs were taxed in the city of New-York, where the solicitors for both parties resided, before the vice chancellor of the first circuit, upon a notice of one day only.
Read the full summary
This was an application for the retaxation of a bill of costs, which the defendants were directed to pay to the complainant’s solicitor. The costs were taxed in the city of New-York, where the solicitors for both parties resided, before the vice chancellor of the first circuit, upon a notice of one day only. At the time of the service of the notice of taxation, the defendants’ solicitor objected to the notice as irregular, and did not attend before the vice chancellor on the taxation, in consequence of which the costs were taxed ex parte.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor,
As the costs were taxed ex parte, and without objection, I cannot, on this application, review the decision of the taxing officer as to any of the items allowed. The only question, therefore, which is proper for consideration here, is as to the regularity of the notice of the taxation. The counsel for the defendant supposes that the 89th rule is applicable to this case; and that a notice of four days should have been given. That rule, however, only applies to notices of hearing, or of special motions or petitions to be made or presented to the court, and is not applicable to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cord v. SouthwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Akerly v. VilasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- People ex rel. Lumley v. LewisNew York Supreme Court · 1863