TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wright v. Reusens

Wright v. Reusens, 15 N.Y.S. 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
July 2, 1891
Judges
Barnard
Citations
15 N.Y.S. 50439 N.Y. St. Rep. 80260 Hun 5851891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 13
Headnotes
.Costs—Taxation—Foreclosing Mechanics’ Liens. An action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is not an action “to determine a claim to real property” within Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 8252, which allows certain additional costs to be taxed for the plaintiff in such case.
Summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by James B. Wright against Guillaume A.Beusens, impleaded with others. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 3252, provides that “where an action is brought * * * to compel the determination of a claim to real property” a certain percentage on the value of the property, the claim to which is determined, shall be allowed the plaintiff as additional costs.

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

Opinion of the Court — Barnard

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

Barnard, P. J.

The statute fee of $60 as an allowance additional to the costs, . under section 3252 of the Code, was properly refused. An action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is not mentioned in that section, and it does not fall within the description of an action to determine a claim to real property. That action has a definite meaning, and refers only to proceedings directed to the end that a party should assert his claim to a title to land or be barred. The calendar fees for the special term were not taxable. The Saturday special term in Westchester county has no regular calendar, I infer from the decision. The papers do not show the contrary. The motion fees rejected were improper. No order is shown by which the motion fee was given directly or provisionally. The charge for copying the report and opinion of the referee was not a legal one, nor the copies of notices of lien. The Code fails to allow anything, therefore, and such charges must be deemed to be within the general costs which are given upon a trial, and which were allowed by the clerk. Charging a witness as an expert, in the absence of proof, will not increase the witness’ fee beyond the general rate for other witnesses. The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McLaughlin v. Mendelson160 A.D. 37 (1913)

Most recent

  1. McLaughlin v. Mendelson160 A.D. 37 (1913)

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