Case ID: ny-st-rep_16/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniels, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick G. Durant, Executor, etc., App’lt, v. William P. Abendroth, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed May 18, 1888.)
    
    •Costs—Extra allowance—When properly allowed.
    When a complaint included nineteen different causes of action, most if not all of which were acquired by the testator by assignment from persons in whose favor they were alleged to exist, the trial of the action as well as the preparation of the answer required an examination into the facts of each of these causes of action. Held, that it necessarily rendered the case both difficult and extraordinary, and for that reason was a proper one for the exercise of the discretion given to the court to make an additional allowance of costs.
    Appeal from a judgment recovered on trial at the •circuit, and from an order making an additional allowance of costs.
    
      Carlisle Norwood, Jr., for app'lt; William Arnoux and David F. Butcher, for resp’t.
   Daniels, J.

The trial includes the disposition of ten different causes of action. They were all disposed of by the court adversely to the plaintiff. The facts in five of the causes of action were substantially like those in the case of Allison v. Abendroth (38 Hun, 586), upon which it was held by the general term that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. This decision has since been affirmed by the court of appeals, and reported in 13 N. T. State Reporter, 831. These decisions leave no further ground of controversy as to the rights of the parties so far as they were presented by these five different causes of action.

The other causes of action were disposed of upon other grounds arising upon the pleadings and the proofs. And while numerous exceptions were taken to the directions given by the court for the disposition of these, and the other causes of action, neither of them seems to be well founded, and upon neither has any special reliance been placed by the counsel in support of the appeal. As to the entire action, so far as it was considered at the trial, it seems to have been rightly disposed of, and the judgment should be affirmed.

The complainant included nineteen different causes of action, most, if not all, of which were acquired by the testator by assignments from the persons in whose favor they ■were alleged to exist. The trial of the action, as well as the preparation of the answer, required an examination into the facts of each of these causes of action, necessarily rendering the case both difficult and extraordinary, and for that, reason a proper one for the exercise of the discretion given to the court to make an additional allowance of costs. The allowance which the court did make amounted to the sum of $500, which did not exceed the limits to which its discretion was subjected for this purpose by the Code. The order making the allowance, as well as the judgment, apEears to have been supported by the facts of the case, and oth should be affirmed, together with the sum of ten dollars costs, besides the disbursements on the appeal from the order.

Brady, J,. concurs.