Talcott v. Bronson & Bronson
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the solicitor for the complainant, to compel the defendants to pay him the amount of several bills of costs in this suit. Exceptions were taken to the separate answers of the defendants, and allowed by the master.
Read the full summary
This was an application on the part of the solicitor for the complainant, to compel the defendants to pay him the amount of several bills of costs in this suit. Exceptions were taken to the separate answers of the defendants, and allowed by the master. And, in March, 1819, upon the petition of the complainant, the chancellor made an order that the defendants put in further answers to the bill in three weeks ; and that they should also pay the costs of that application and the costs upon the exceptions. Further answers were afterwards put in, but the costs were not paid. In October, 1819, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendants in this case have no right to complain of the delay of the complainant’s solicitor; as he served them with a copy of the costs and of the order for their payment, and demanded the payment thereof, very soon after the discontinuance of the suit. If they have neglected to pay these costs and to look to the complainant for an equitable contribution, under the agreement entered into upon the settlement, until he has become insolvent, it is their own fault. The solicitor of the complainant had obtained a final order of the court previous to the settlement, entitling…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Coughlin v. . N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
- National Exhibition Co. v. CraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Coughlin v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Burkhart v. ScottWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1911
- Ex parte PlittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1853
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.