Case Name: Decker against Gardiner & Matthews
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1853-03
Citations: 8 N.Y. 29
Docket Number: 
Parties: Decker against Gardiner & Matthews.
Judges: Fo'r the resolution—Rttggles, Ch. J., Gardiner, Jewett, Johnson, Morse, Mason and Willard, JJ.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 29–30

Head Matter:
Decker against Gardiner & Matthews.
In an action for a tort against two, where there is a verdict in favor of one defendant, and in favor of the plaintiff against the other defendant, the ■ defendant prevailing is entitled of course to costs, under section 305 of the code of procedure.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of New York. Decker brought an action against the defendants for the conversion of a promissory note. Both appeared by the same attorney and put in a single answer, in which, however, each defendant answered “separately and not jointly,” the matters of defence upon which he relied. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Duer, on the 20th of February, 1851, when a verdict was found in favor of the defendant Gardiner, and in favor of the plaintiff against Matthews. Gardiner, upon application at a special term of the court, on the 10th of May, 1851, obtained an order for his costs against the plaintiff, and an allowance of one hundred dollars. The plaintiff appealed from the order to the general term of the court, where the order was affirmed, upon the ground that Gardiner having had a verdict in his favor at the trial was entitled to costs of course, under and by force of section 305 of the code of procedure, that the matter of such costs was not in the discretion of the court under section 306, and that that section does not apply to the case mentioned in section 304. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
S. Beardsley for appellant.
N. Hill, Jr., for respondent.

Opinion:
Ruggles, Ch. J.,
read an opinion in favor of affirming the judgment as to the part of the costs given under section 307 of the code upon the ground stated by Sanford J. in Comstock v. Bayard (2 Sand. S. C. Rep. 705), and as to the allowance of one hundred dollars on the ground that it was the exercise of a discretionary power given the court below with which this court could not interfere.
Gardiner, Jewett, Johnson, Morse and Mason, JJ., concurred'in this opinion.