Lafond v. Jetzkowitz
New York Supreme Court
Motion by the defendant for a d°w taxation of costs. The action was for the conversion of a mortgage upon land in Russia. Upon the first trial, the jury disagreed, and upon the second, the plaintiff recovered. The clerk having taxed in the plaintiff’s bill of costs two trial fees, defendant moved for a new taxation.
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
—Under the former Code, a trial fee
could be taxed for every trial, and where on the first trial the jury disagreed, and upon the second trial found a verdict for the defendant, it was held that the defendant could tax two trial fees (Hamilton v. Butler, 19 Abb. Pr. 446; Spring v. Day, 44 How. Pr. 390; Cregin v. Brooklyn Crosstown R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 349). The question is not free from doubt, but I think that *88a trial fee may still be taxed for each trial, and that the decisions heretofore made as to what constitutes a trial are applicable under the new Code.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hamilton v. ButlerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1865
- Spring v. DayThe Superior Court of New York City · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Engberman v. North German Lloyd Steamship Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903