Powell v. Kane
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, by the complain ants, from an order of ¿he vice chancellor of the first circuit, overruling exceptions to a master’s report, on a reference of certain parts of the affidavits read by the complainants in opposition to a motion; which parts of the affidavits were alleged to be impertinent and scandalous.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, by the complain ants, from an order of ¿he vice chancellor of the first circuit, overruling exceptions to a master’s report, on a reference of certain parts of the affidavits read by the complainants in opposition to a motion; which parts of the affidavits were alleged to be impertinent and scandalous. It appeared by the papers before the chancellor, upon the appeal, that the defendant, O. Kane, was made a party to a'suit in which it became a question whether it was necessary for him to put in an answer to protect himself, or ¿he estate which he represented, against future…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The question as to the propriety "of charging the costs upon the solicitor personally, instead of charging them upon his clients, does not appear tobe properly before me on this appeal. The appellants are benefitted instead of being aggrieved by that part of the order, and therefore have no right to complain; as the solicitor or counsel who is personally charged with the costs of impertinence, has no legal or equitable claim upon his client to refund the costs *267thus paid. If the solicitor or counsel in such a case feels himself aggrieved by being personally charged with the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Opdyke v. MarbleNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- People ex rel. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. v. FairmanNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- Camden & Amboy Railroad v. StewartNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1868
- Cantillon v. City of CincinnatiOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1903