Case ID: cow_4/html/0532-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Ten Eyck and Wife, against Clark.
    Separate pa-Hons fov judgmentas in case díffMontcauBes, in favor of the same nom- , inal plaintiff, on the same demise, though against different defendants, the attorneys for the parlies being the same in each, and- the motions depending on the samo cause, arising simul taneously, will not, in future, be taxed.
    There were eleven causes on the same demise against different defendants, and the same attorneys in each ; and the defendant’s attorney had prepared eleven different sets of papers, for eleven different motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit, on the same ground, and for the same cause arising at the same time; and the question was, whether the defendants should respectively, on the plaintiff’s stipulating, be entitled to have the expense of all these papers taxed against him.
    
      B. Perkins, for the defendants.
    
      J. M'Kown, contra.
   Curia.

We are not aware that we have denied costs for any part of the papers when actually made out under these circumstances; though we have held, that in like cases, where they were in fact consolidated, they should not he taxed as separate sets. It is competent, though not necessary, to come here upon distinct papers; and we allow them to be taxed in this instance: but we wish the bar to understand, that this will not be done hereafter in the like cases. Here arc the same plaintiff, the same lessors, and, though different defendants, the same attorneys in all the causes : and the same motion is made in each, on the same grounds, and the causes of the motions arose at the same time. One set óf papers would, in truth, have answered every purpose; and, in future, no more will be taxed.

Rule accordingly. 
      
       Vid. Jackson v. Gafnaey, (3 Cowen’s Rep. 385 :) Jackson v. Keller, (18 John. Rep. 310 ;) and Boyce v. Thompson, (20 id. 274.)