Case ID: how-pr_9/html/0231-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Harris, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Matthewson agt. Thompson and another.
    Where two defendants, one a plaintiff in an execution, the other a constable, were sued for taking property, and appeared by different attorneys, and succeeded in the defence, on a motion for an extra allowance to each—held, that the defendants, having succeeded in receiving a double bill of costs for a single defence, that would answer, without an extra allowance.
    
      Albany Special Term,
    January, 1854.
    Motion for extra allowance.—Two defendants were sued, the one the plaintiff in an execution, and the other the constable who held the execution, for taking property of the plaintiff by virtue of the execution against another person. The defendants appeared by different attorneys, and, having succeeded in their defence, each moved for an extra allowance of costs.
    D. McElwain, for Plaintiff.
    
    J. M. Tuttle, for Defendants.
    
   Harris, Justice.

There was, in fact, but one defence in the action. The constable undoubtedly acted under the direction of the plaintiff in the execution. It was for him to conduct the defence. By severing in their defence, the defendants have become entitled to two bills of costs. Having thus succeeded in recovering double the amount of costs prescribed for a single defence, I do not feel authorized to increase the recovery still more hy granting to either party an extra allowance. The motion must therefore be denied.