Case ID: how-pr_2/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beardsley, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clarissa Brown agt. Samuel S. Ferguson.
    A letter, proposing to tax a bill of costs in a cause before a certain officer at his office on a certain day and hour, is not a notice of taxation. A relaxation on ’ such information is irregular.
    
      April Term, 1846.
    Motion by defendant for retaxation of costs.
    Plaintiff’s attorneys served on defendant’s attorney notice of retaxation of the plaintiff’s bill of costs in this cause, on the 10th of March last for the 16th of March, before Samuel F. Beynolds, Esq., supreme court commissioner at Sing Sing, Westchester county. Defendant’s attorney attended at the time and place noticed to oppose the taxation, and there met one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Mr. Briggs. Mr. Beynolds the commissioner was absent in the city of New York, and did not return by 4 o’clock, p. M., when defendant’s attorney left. Mr. Briggs proposed to defendant’s attorney to have the costs retaxed before Mr. Hallett in New York, on a day thereafter to be fixed between the defendant’s attorney and Mr. Lee, one of plaintiff’s attorneys, who was to attend the taxation. Defendant’s attorney assented to that proposition, and they left Sing Sing for their respective residences. On the 17th of March, defendant’s attorney received from Mr. Lee, one of plaintiff’s attorneys, a letter dated 12th March, proposing to retax the costs before Mr. Beynolds at Sing Sing, on the 23d March. Defendant’s attorney observed the letter was dated before the interview he had with Mr. Briggs, and supposed that Mr. Lee, on hearing the arrangement to have the costs taxed by Mr. Hallett, would again notice the costs for retaxation, that he did not regard the letter as a notice of re-taxation. The letter read as follows: “ Owenville, 12th March, 1846. ■ J. W. Tompkins, Esq. Dear Sir—I have just received information of Mr. Reynolds that he will be in New York on Monday; on hearing from Mr. Clapp, to-day that you will oppose on relaxation of the costs in Brown agt. Ferguson, *1 hasten to apprise you, in the hope that you may receive this in time to avoid a bootless journey through the mud. We now propose to re tax the plaintiff’^ costs in Brown agt. Ferguson before Mr. Reynolds at his office in Sing Sing, on Monday week, the 23d instant, at 12 o’clock, m. Yours, &c., Thomas R. Lee.”
    On the 28th March, defendant’s attorney learned that plaintiff’s attorneys, had the costs retaxed before Mr. Reynolds; on the 23d March, no one appearing to oppose, they were taxed at the full amount.
    Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that the letter was a sufficient notice of relaxation to defendant’s attorney.
    J. W. Tompkins, defendant's counsel and attorney.
    
    •A. Taber, plaintiff's counsel.
    
    Lee & Briggs, plaintiff's attorneys.
    
   Beardsley, Justice.

Granted the motion, with $10 costs. The letter proposing a day of taxation was not a notice of taxation, the retaxation was irregular.