Hinman v. Booth
New York Supreme Court
Cross-motions for retaxation of costs, in ejectment. On the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, Guy, George T. and Mary Iiinman-, for an undivided quarter of the premises, for the plaintiff Cdtlih 'fóv an undivided half of-the premises, and as to the plaintiff Beardslee,-wh.o claimed the remaining quarter, the jury‘found a verdict for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Cross-motions for retaxation of costs, in ejectment. On the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, Guy, George T. and Mary Iiinman-, for an undivided quarter of the premises, for the plaintiff Cdtlih 'fóv an undivided half of-the premises, and as to the plaintiff Beardslee,-wh.o claimed the remaining quarter, the jury‘found a verdict for the defendant. The defendant made a case for the purpose of setting aside the verdict both- as to the Hinmans and Catlin, On argument of the. case, the court held that the Hinmans had made a good title to one quarter, but that the verdict in favor…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, J.
The Hinmans are entitled to judgment against the defendant on the verdict in their favor, and will recover costs as a matter of course. Their right has been contested throughout, and there is no practical rule, consistent with the statute, but to allow them such costs as they would have recovered if they had sued alone, without joining with the two plaintiffs who failed in the action. All charges which relate exclusively to the claim of the two plaintiffs who have been defeated must be rejected. If, for example, the declaration contained separate counts upon their…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Canfield v. GaylordNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Maybury & Clark v. EvansNew York Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- M. Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Hoffman v. GrobsmithNew York Supreme Court · 1927
- Durgin v. LeightonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813