Case Name: HOWELL against VElTH et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-05
Citations: 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOWELL against VElTH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: City Court Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
City Court.
Special Term
May, 1887.
HOWELL against VElTH et al.
Defendants appearing by different attorneys and interposing sepa- ■ rate answers are not entitled to separate bills of costs, if the attorneys so appearing are partners, or if one is the clerk of the other.

Opinion:
McAdam, Ch. J.
The defendants, having interposed separate answers by different attorneys, are presumably entitled to separate bills of costs; but the plaintiff destroyed this presumption by proof that one of the attorneys who appeared is a clerk of the other attorney, occupying the same office. It was, therefore, in legal effect, an appearance by the same attorney. There was no necessity for a separate defense (Perry v. Livingston, 6 How. Pr. 404). The rule is the same where defendants appear by separate attorneys who are partners (6 How. Pr. 9; 5 Id. 104; 15 Abb. Pr. 75; 16 Barb. 593). The cases relied on by the defendant do not conflict with these "views.
Taxation affirmed.