Legal Opinion

Carter v. Barnum

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1898PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Motion to charge defendant with costs.

1Opinion of the CourtHiscock, J.

The plaintiff has, upon a trial before a referee, secured a recovery of $40, upon a much larger claim which was rejected by defendant, and he now seeks an allowance of costs under sections 1835 and 1836, upon the ground that defendant did not file a consent after rejection of the claim to have the same determined upon the final settlement of his accounts.

The claim was rejected by the executor April 21, 1897. May 17, 1897, the amendment-to section 1836 of the Obde 'took effect requiring the consent above mentioned to be filed at least ten days before, instead of simply before, the expiration…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lazarus v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Smith v. New York & Oswego Midland RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1875

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Nicomen Boom Co. v. North Shore Boom & Driving Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
  2. People v. De Renna, New York County Courts1938
  3. Brainerd v. DeGraefNew York Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Lamphere v. LamphereNew York Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Lamphere v. LamphereNew York Supreme Court · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API