Case Name: BULLARD et al. v. HARRIS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-22
Citations: 21 N.Y.S. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: BULLARD et al. v. HARRIS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 21
Pages: 9–9

Head Matter:
BULLARD et al. v. HARRIS et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
November 22, 1892.)
Judgment—Entry—Decision Showing Findings. A judgment for costs entered on findings of the court will not be set aside because a former decision embracing such findings has not been filed, where such findings have been made part of the record.
Appeal from special term, Warren county.
Action by Charles E. Bullard and Charles 0. Howe' against Mary C. Harris and another. From the dismissal of a motion for an order to set aside a judgment for costs, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.
E. G. Bullard, (E. F. Bullard, of counsel,) for appellants.
John H. Bendict, (William H. McCall, of counsel,) for respondents.

Opinion:
HERRICK, J.
The respondent Mary C. Harris was joined with others as defendant. Her interests were not entirely the same as those of the other defendants. She appeared by her own attorney; she put in a separate answer, and upon the trial separate requests to find were proposed in her behalf, and found by the court, and the court awarded her costs. Upon those findings of the court she has entered up a judgment for costs, but has not written out and filed a formal decision embracing the findings of the court. While the course pursued is not good practice, still the facts and conclusions of law found by the court are made a part of the record, everything really essential is there, no injustice is done to the plaintiff by the procedure adopted, and I can see no reason why the judgment should be set aside. Let the order of the special term be affirmed, with $10 costs and printing and other disbursements. All concur.