Murtha v. . Curley
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made the first Monday of February, 1883, which reversed an order of Special Term retaxing plaintiff’s costs. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Plaintiff is entitled to the costs at General Term. (Sanders v. Townsend, 11 Abb. N. C. 217; Code of Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made the first Monday of February, 1883, which reversed an order of Special Term retaxing plaintiff’s costs. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Plaintiff is entitled to the costs at General Term. (Sanders v. Townsend, 11 Abb. N. C. 217; Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 3228, 3230, 3237, 3238.) The order is appealable. [Sturgis v. Spofford, 58 N. Y. 103; 3 Abb. [N. S.] 183; 49 N. Y. 660.) The first appeal to the General Term being from a final judgment the costs thereof were in the discretion of the…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
In this action a money judgment was recovered against the defendant. From that judgment he appealed to the General Term of the Hew York Superior Court, where the judgment was reversed and a new trial granted, “ with costs to the appellant to abide the event of such new trial.” From the order of the General Term the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the order of the General Term and affirmed the judgment of the Special Term, “ with costs.” Upon the taxation of costs, plaintiff sought to tax the costs of the appeal to the General Term. Upon objection on behalf of the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Durant v. AbendrothNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Murthey v. BurkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Norton v. FancherNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Pedersen v. J. F. Fitzgerald Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.