Legal Opinion
Zelmanovitz v. Manhattan Railway Co.
New York Court of Common Pleas
Decided February 12, 1891PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Action by Leopold Zelmanovitz against the Manhattan Railway Company. Motion for taxation of costs.
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, C. J.
Under the former Code of Procedure, allowing the taxation of only such disbursements as were “necessary,” it was generally held that the expense of a copy of the stenographer’s minutes of a former trial, procured for use upon the second trial, could not be taxed (Hamilton v. Butler, 30 How. Pr. 36, Robertson, J.; Id., 19 Abb. Pr. 446), although it was subsequently determined that it might be (Flood v. Moore, 2 Abb. N. C. 91, Westbrook, J.). In the first case it was said that they were “very useful,” but not a necessary disbursement In the second case it was said that the allowance of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hamilton v. ButlerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1865
- Sebley v. NicholsNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Spring v. DayThe Superior Court of New York City · 1873
- Stevens v. New York Elevated RailroadThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1890
- Flood v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Seifter v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Kummer v. Christopher & Tenth St. RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Engberman v. North German Lloyd Steamship Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903