TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hays v. Williams

Michael Hays ads. Daniel Williams

Hays v. Williams, 9 N.J.L. 384 (1828)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1828
Citations
9 N.J.L. 384
Headnotes
Tlie party obtaining the taxation of a bill of costs, must, upon a re-taxation, prove the items objected to. But the party moving for a re-taxation must give liis adversary notice, and state the particulars of the bill of costs to which lie objects, and the nature of bis objection.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Chief Justice.

After reflecting upon the matter, and considering that the practice has been to tax these items upon the representation of the attorney, we think the safe course will be to compel the party obtaining the taxation of the bill to prove them upon a retaxation. But then in *477 future we shall require the party moving for a retaxatión to give notice to his adversary, and state the particulars of the bill of costs to which he objects, and the nature of his objection. * A general rule of practice to this effect lias been made by the court.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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