Case ID: nys_63/html/0853-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GILDERSLEEVE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(30 Misc. Rep. 530.)
    HACKETT v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    February, 1900.)
    Costs — Ruling on Demurrer — Extra Allowance.
    An extra allowance, authorized by Code, § 3253, of not over 5 per cent., on the kum recovered or claimed, in a difficult or extraordinary case, where a defense has been interposed, cannot be granted on the overruling of a demurrer with leave to answer on payment of costs, but only when final unconditional judgment is rendered.
    Action by Mary Hackett against the Equitable Life Assurance Society. Motion for extra allowance upon the overruling of a demurrer to the complaint.
    Denied.
    C. N. Morgan, for the motion.
    W. B. Hornblower, opposed.
   GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint, argument was had, and the demurrer was overruled, with leave to defendant to withdraw the same and answer on payment of costs. The plaintiff makes a motion for an extra allowance. The Code, in section 3253, provides for an extra allowance of not over 5 per cent, upon the sum recovered or claimed, or the value of the subject-matter involved, in a difficult and extraordinary cáse, where a defense has been interposed. It has been held that a demurrer is a defense, within the meaning of the section, and that an additional allowance .can be granted. Railroad Co. v. Harold, 30 Hun, 466. Also, see People v. Fitchburg R. Co., 133 N. Y. 239, 30 N. E. 1011; Moulton v. Beecher, 1 Abb. N. C. 245. It is true that only one allowance can be given, although the case may be tried several times. See Flynn v. Society, 18 Hun, 213. An additional allowance, however, cannot be granted upon overruling or sustaining a demurrer, with leave to answer on payment of costs, but only when the final judgment is pronounced that unconditionally terminates the action, and fixes absolutely the right of the successful party to tax his costs under the Code. See De Stuckle v. Railroad Co., 30 Hun, 34 (Davis, P. J.) The demurrer in the case at bar, as we have seen, was overruled, with leave to answer, and I do not see how an additional allowance can be granted.

Motion denied; no costs.