Legal Opinion

Maltby-Henley Co. v. Deane

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1898Published

Action by William E. Deane against the Maltby-Henley Company. A judgment for plaintiff in the municipal court was filed with the county clerk, and defendant moves to correct the same by reducing the amount of fees allowed for a deposition.

1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.

I do not think that I have the power to grant this motion. The judgment, to all intents and purposes, remains, after the filing of the transcript in the county clerk’s office, a judgment of the municipal court, except for the purposes of its enforcement. The judgment to be enforced is the judgment as rendered by the municipal court,—not another or a reduced judgment. Formal amendments may be allowed, but the amount of the judgment cannot be changed. The cases cited by the plaintiff’s counsel do not hold to the contrary (see Hilton v. Sinsheimer, 5 Civ. Proc. R. 355; Dieffenbach v. Roch, 112…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dieffenbach v. . RochNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Edel v. McConeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1890

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API