Legal Opinion

Mead v. . Tuckerman

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 13, 1887PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from, order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made December 15, 1886, which affirmed an order of Special Term, denying a motion for a retaxation of the referee’s fees herein. The attorney for the parties stipulated in writing, during the progress of the reference, that the compensation of the referee should be “ for every hearing heretofore had or hereafter to be had * * * the sum of $20 per day.”

Read the full summary

Appeal from, order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made December 15, 1886, which affirmed an order of Special Term, denying a motion for a retaxation of the referee’s fees herein. The attorney for the parties stipulated in writing, during the progress of the reference, that the compensation of the referee should be “ for every hearing heretofore had or hereafter to be had * * * the sum of $20 per day.” The facts material to the question presented are stated in the opinion. The referee was not entitled to compensation for days when no other…

1Per curiam

The question in this case turns upon the interpretation of that clause in the written stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, which declares that the compensation of the referee shall be the sum of twenty dollars per day “ for every hearing.” The fees in controversy relate to the charge made by the referee for thirty-nine days on which appointments for a hearing had been made at the request of counsel, but where no hearing in fact was had and no meeting or appearance before the referee. The failure to appear on the several days so appointed was due to the fact that by…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Keeler v. BellNew York Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Brush v. KelseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  3. Butterly v. DeeringNew York Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Finkel v. KohnNew York Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Morgenthaler v. CarlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API