Case ID: ny_122/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret D. Griswold, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company et al., Appellants.
    (Argued October 20, 1890;
    decided October 28, 1890.)
    This was a motion to amend the remittitur herein.
    The case is reported ante, p. 102.
    The following is the mem. of opinion:
    “ 1. The remittitur must be so amended as to conform to the opinion in respect to the costs of this court, which, in the event of an affirmance of the judgment, are awarded to the appellants.
    “ 2. The motion to further amend so as to give the appellants costs of the General Term should the stipulation be made which will result in an affirmance of the judgment, is-denied. The defendant omitted to call the attention of the General Term to the point upon which it prevails in this court. Had it done so this appeal might, and probably would, have been unnecessary. Its requests to be awarded costs of that court, therefore, is wholly without equitable justification.
    “3. The appellants further insist that this case does not come within the rule authorizing this court to permit an affirmance of the judgment after modification pursuant to stipulation. In view of the fact that the counsel for the appellants, upon the argument of the appeal, recommended a modification of the judgment and pointed out the manner for determining the amount which should be deducted therefrom, we need not consider the argument now presented. The amendment requested in that respect is denied.”
    
      Brainard Tolles for motion.
    
      Inglis Stuart opposed.
   Parker, <]'., reads mem. for granting motion in part and denying it in part.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.