Taylor v. Bolmer
New York Supreme Court
Motion that assignees pay costs. In January, 1845, the plaintiffs brought this suit to recover a demand of about $800. In May following, pending the suit, the plaintiffs made a general assignment of their property, this demand among the rest, to Miller Shaurman, for the benefit of their creditors—Miller & Shaurman being two of the creditors intended to be benefitted by the assignment.
Read the full summary
Motion that assignees pay costs. In January, 1845, the plaintiffs brought this suit to recover a demand of about $800. In May following, pending the suit, the plaintiffs made a general assignment of their property, this demand among the rest, to Miller Shaurman, for the benefit of their creditors—Miller & Shaurman being two of the creditors intended to be benefitted by the assignment. The plaintiffs continued the prosecution of the suit until December last, when it was finally determined in favor of the defendant, and his costs were taxed at $118,83. The plaintiffs are insolvent. The cause…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.
The rule is, that when an assignee, or person beneficially interested in the demand, brings or carries on a suit in the name of another, he must pay the defendant’s costs if the suit fail. Here the assignees neither brought the suit, nor have they been instrumental in carrying it on. They have done no act whatever by way of prosecuting the claim. The defendant relies on a dictum of mine in Miller v. Franklin, (20 Wend. 630,) to the effect that it is enough that an assignee pendente lite knows of the suit, and allows it to proceed for his benefit. That was going…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. FranklinNew York Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Langley v. . WarnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- McCarthey v. WrightNew York Supreme Court · 1890