Case ID: how-pr_1/html/0071-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. Platt et al. vs. Richard D. Littell, John Totten and Jacob Bodine.
    Under the 84th rule, joint defendants in assumpsit appearing in good faith by different attorneys (except attorneys separately appearing who are partners in business), are each entitled to move for judgment as in case of non-suit.
    
      Motion by each defendant for judgment as incase of non-suit.—In this cause, which appears on the papers to be assumpsit against the defendants jointly, each of the defendants gave a separate notice of motion for judgment as in case of non-suit. Affidavits were read in opposition to excuse the omission to try the cause at the circuit for which it was noticed, but which were held insufficient for that purpose. It was then objected, that the defendants, Littell and Bodine, had appeared and moved separately by attorneys who were partners in business for the ■purpose of increasing costs, and the court granted the motions, unless plaintiffs stipulate, &c. but with costs of but one motion.
    
      The third motion in behalf of defendant Totten noticed by a -different attorney, was also granted, unless, &c., with costs of motion ; it being the opinion of the court that under the 84th standing rule, joint defendants in assumpsit appearing in good faith by different attornéys, were each entitled to move.
    S. Sherwood, Counsel for deft Bodine.
    
    F. S. Kinney, Atty for deft Bodine.
    
    R W. Peckham, Counsel for deft Littell.
    
    R. W. Townsend, Atty for deft Littell.
    
    F. H. Hastings, Counsel for deft Totten.
    
    Gibbs & Beckwith, Atty for deft fotten.
    
    A. Taber, Counsel for plff.
    
    E. W. Cone, Atty for pff.
    
   Rules according to the above decisions.