Burnett v. Westfall
New York Supreme Court
Motions by plaintiff and defendant for re-adjustment of plaintiff’s costs, and by plaintiff for re-adjustment of defendant’s costs. In August last an order was made on application of the defendant that he, the defendant, recover costs under section. 885 of the Code, and that such costs be set-off against the recovery of the plaintiff. That motion was resisted on the ground that the offer of judgment was insufficient. But the offer was held sufficient.
Read the full summary
Motions by plaintiff and defendant for re-adjustment of plaintiff’s costs, and by plaintiff for re-adjustment of defendant’s costs. In August last an order was made on application of the defendant that he, the defendant, recover costs under section. 885 of the Code, and that such costs be set-off against the recovery of the plaintiff. That motion was resisted on the ground that the offer of judgment was insufficient. But the offer was held sufficient. See the statement of the facts in the case as reported on that motion, ante, p. 420. The costs of the plaintiff and defendant were subsequently…
1Opinion of the Court
Welles, Justice.
It is conceded by the defendant’s counsel, that if the plaintiff is entitled to costs at all, the bill is properly taxed at $19.14.
But he appeals from the taxation, on the ground, that as he claims, the plaintiff is not entitled to any costs. Section 385 of the Code, after providing that the defendant may serve an offer on the plaintiff allowing him to take judgment, &c., and that the plaintiff may serve a notice of acceptance, &c., concludes as follows: “If the notice of acceptance be not given, the offer is to be deemed withdrawn, and cannot be given in evidence; and if the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hirschspring v. BoeCity of New York Municipal Court · 1887
- Magnin v. DinsmoreThe Superior Court of New York City · 1873
- Hesse-Schnitt, Inc. v. BraheNew York Supreme Court · 1929