Case ID: ny-st-rep_49/html/0884-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fitzsimons, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D. Edgar Codding et al., Resp’ts, v. Samuel C. Scott et al., App’lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 22, 1892.)
    
    Costs—Plaintiff entitled to but one bill of.
    The fact that the defendants appear by different attorneys and serve separate answers does not authorize the plaintiff to tax more than one bill of costs.
    Appeal from order severing the action and granting two bills of costs to plaintiffs.
    
      Douglas & Minton, for resp’ts; Leonard S. Wheeler, for app’lt, Howard; George C. Comstock, for app’lt, Scott.
   Fitzsimons, J.

This action is based upon an undertaking given to obtain a warrant of attachment.

The defendants were the sureties, they appeared by different attorneys, filed separate answers, made motions separately, and, finally, made separate offers of judgment, which were accepted by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs then obtained an order severing the action, and granting two bills of costs.

From said orders this appeal is taken.

The plaintiffs had the right to tax only one bill of costs. The fact that defendants appeared by different attorneys and served separate answers does not alter this rule. 16 St. Eep., 904.

The same rule does not apply to parties defendant. The Code, in certain cases, authorizes the taxation of more than one bill of costs against parties plaintiff in favor of parties defendant.

The orders appealed from are reversed, without costs.

For our power to reverse said orders without costs, see 26 Hun, 518.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.