Castellanos v. Beauville
The Superior Court of New York City
Taxation of costs.—The suit was trespass, against Beau-ville, Samanos, and W. Jones, sheriff. The latter appeared by his attorneys, Messrs. Brown & Matthews, and put in a plea. Beauville and Samanos appeared, and put in a joint plea by W. Skidmore, their attorney. The defence of B. and S. was jointly conducted until the second trial, when Samanos was-acquitted.
Read the full summary
Taxation of costs.—The suit was trespass, against Beau-ville, Samanos, and W. Jones, sheriff. The latter appeared by his attorneys, Messrs. Brown & Matthews, and put in a plea. Beauville and Samanos appeared, and put in a joint plea by W. Skidmore, their attorney. The defence of B. and S. was jointly conducted until the second trial, when Samanos was-acquitted. At that stage of the matter, Brown & Matthews became Beauville’s attorneys, on a substitution for Skidmore, and conducted the suit till its termination in a judgment for all of the defendants. On taxing the costs, a full bill was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.
The defences of Beauvile and Samanos were conducted by the same attorney, and on the same plea while S. continued in the suit, and there can be only a single bill of costs for both during that period. After that, the defence of Beauville and the sheriff was conducted jointly by the same attorneys for both. It is not the case, therefore, of a separate defence by separate attorneys. There separate bills are allowed, where the defences were so conducted in good faith, and not for costs. Where in truth and in effect the defences have been united, there can be only one…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bridgeport Insurance v. WilsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861
- Heye v. RobertsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1874