TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Sullivan

Clark v. Sullivan, 10 N.Y.S. 397 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
June 20, 1890
Judges
Corlett
Citations
10 N.Y.S. 39731 N.Y. St. Rep. 7561890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2134
Headnotes
Costs—On Appeal—Modification of Order. Where on appeal the general term allows a certain amount for costs, the remedy of the prevailing party, who claims a greater amount, is by application to that court for a modification of its order, and not by appeal from the taxation of the clerk, in accordance with the order.
Summary
Appeal from special term, Monroe county. Action by Charles W. Clark against Sarah E. Sullivan. From an order denying a motion for relaxation of costs defendant appeals. For former report, see 8 1ST. Y. Supp. 565.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Corlett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Corlett, J.

The Monroe county judge made an order directing a commission to issue to take the testimony of a witness out of the state. As amended, it was entered September 7, 1889. The general term on appeal reversed the order, with $10 costs and disbursements. 8 N. Y. Supp. 565 . The county clerk so taxed. The defendant appealed from the taxation of the clerk to the special term of this court, claiming that she was entitled to $20 before argument, and $40 for argument at the general term, instead of $10 costs and disbursements, as specified in the general term order. The special term denied the motion for retaxation. This appeal is from that order.

If the general term fell into an error in directing the amount of costs, it is obvious that the remedy of the defeated party would be an application to that court for a modification or revocation of the order. Gould v. Root, 4 Hill, 554 . It would lead to great mischief and confusion to attack the decisions of this court collaterally on appeal from another order. The well-established practice is the other way. Aside from this, the order was right on the merits. Ranney v. Persser, 3 Law Bull. 10; Phipps v. Carman, 26 Hun, 518 . It was simply an appeal from an order, and section 3251, subd. 4, has no application. The motion was non-enumerated. Sections 767 and 779. The order should be affirmed. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hadley v. Pethcal24 N.Y.S. 803 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Hadley v. Pethcal24 N.Y.S. 803 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list