Case Name: Angela E. Moosbrugger, Appellant, v. August Kaufman, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 7 A.D. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Angela E. Moosbrugger, Appellant, v. August Kaufman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 380–389

Head Matter:
Angela E. Moosbrugger, Appellant, v. August Kaufman, Respondent.
Costs—where several defendants who might be sued together are sued in sepa/rate actions—how the defendant must “recover” to entitle him to costs on one, where the complaint states several cazases of action separately—only one bill of costs allowed in the case of several simila/r actions, one against each of several defendants.
Upon a taxation of costs it appeared that fifteen several actions were brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, as stockholders of an insolvent corporation, whose capital had not been fully paid in, to enforce their statutory liability for the debts of the corporation, and that the complaints, which with the exception of the names of the defendants were alike in all the actions, each stated nine causes of action which had been assigned to the plaintiff. The actions were all referred to the same referee to be heard and determined, but upon the trial the plaintiff only gave evidence as to three of the causes of action alleged in the complaints; in each of the fifteen actions the referee found in the plaintiff’s favor as to two of them, and as to the other found in favor of the defendants, holding that the person who assigned that cause of action to the plaintiff was a stockholder at the time the indebtedness, on which that cause of action was based,, was contracted.
Held, that the defendant in each action was not entitled under section 3284 of the Code of Civil Procedure to tax a bill of costs against the plaintiff, as it could not be said that the respective defendants in the several actions had recovered upon the issue as to which the plaintiff had failed;
That it is only in cases where the defendant has asked for and obtained an affirmative verdict or finding in his favor, such an one as would have the effect of disposing of the cause of action as to which the plaintiff has failed, that the defendant can be said to have “recovered” upon the issue in a manner which will entitle him to costs.
Follett and Green, JJ., dissented.
Semble, that inasmuch as the defendants in the separate actions might all have been made parties defendant in a single action in which the claims could have been litigated, that the plaintiff was entitled to costs in but one action and his disbursements and the referee’s fees in all.
. Appeal by the .plaintiff, Angela E. Moosbrugger, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Monroe Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Steuben on the 30th day of December, 1895, disallowing the plaintiff’s costs and allowing the defendant’s costs in the above-entitled action, and in fourteen other actions by the same plaintiff against different defendants.
When the motion was heard several affidavits were read, and the plaintiff’s bill of costs in each action with two affidavits of her attorney, and a bill of costs' of each defendant with an affidavit of the defendants’ attorney and notice of adjustment and the complaint, answer and referee’s report in each action, were read, and the plaintiff’s objection in each action dated April 9,1895, to the taxation of the defendants’ bill of costs and an affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney made the 9th of April, 1895, accompanying the objection in each, action, and the defendants’ objection in each action to the taxation of the plaintiff’s bill of costs dated April 10, 1895, and the affidavit of the attorney for the defendants read in support of the motion, and an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney verified May 22, 1895, were read in opposition, and the court granted an order containing the following language:
“ Ordered, that the said item of eighty dollars, and also the said item of fifteen dollars taxed by the cleric in each of- said actions be and the same hereby is disallowed. And it is further
“ Ordered, that the costs of the defendant in each action as presented to the clerk, to wit: Seventy-five dollars, be and the same hereby is allowed. And it is further
11 Ordered, that the plaintiff pay to the defendant Eleckenstein or his attorneys ten dollars costs of this motion.”
On January 16, 1896, the plaintiff took an appeal from the order to this court.
Plaintiff served a bill of costs in each action with two affidavits, with a notice indorsed thereon that the same was to be adjusted by the clerk of Steuben county on the 10th of April, 1895. The defendant in each action served a bill of costs to which was appended an affidavit and a notice that the same" would be adjusted by the clerk. An appearance was had before the clerk, and the defendants’ counsel presented a bill of costs of the defendant in each action, and plaintiff filed objections and an affidavit in each action; and the plaintiff’s bills of costs were presented together with an affidavit in support thereof, and the complaint, answer and referee’s report. The bills of costs and affidavits were substantially the same in all the actions except as to the name of the defendant. The defendants’ counsel then presented objections and an affidavit in opposition to the taxation of the plaintiff’s costs, which were alike in all of the said actions except the name of the defendant. The clerk then, at the request of the counsel for the plaintiff, reserved his decision in order to permit the plaintiff’s counsel to present a brief in opposition to the authorities which were then presented by the defendant’s counsel. The defendant’s counsel was advised on the 23d. of April, 1895, that the clerk had “ taxed costs in favor of plaintiff in each action as presented, except that he disallowed the item of six dollars and eighty-four cents in all but one bill of costs, and disallowed the item of one dollar trial fee in each bill of costs. He also refused to tax any costs in favor of any defendant.” Further facts appear in the dissenting opinion of Follett, J.
James O. Sebring, for the appellant.
George F. Yeoman, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents' that the defendant in each action is entitled to tax a bill of costs against the plaintiff, and in support of that contention he calls attention to section 3234 of the Code of Civil Procedure.. That section provides that " In an action specified in section three thousand two hundred and twenty-eight of this act, wherein the complaint sets forth separately two or more causes of action, upon which issues of fact are joined, if the plaintiff recovers upon one or more of the issues, and the defendant upon the other or others, each party is entitled to costs against the adverse party. " The complaint in this action set forth nine causes of action, which apparently are such as aré enumerated in subdivision 4 of section 3228 of the. Code. However,' upon the trial evidence was given by the plaintiff as to only three of these, and as to one of the three a defense had been set up to the effect that as to that cause of action the plaintiff's assignor, one Sebring, was a stockholder of the corporation of which, in their capacity as stockholders, the plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable. That claim was for services rendered by Sebring, an attorney, and the referee finds: " That at the time the indebtedness of the said Company to said Sebring for said services was contracted and incurred, the said Sebring was a stockholder in said Company owning two shares of its capital stock." It is also found that he assigned his claim to the plaintiff. As matter of law the referee held, viz,: " That the plaintiff's assignor of the claim for services rendered for said Company by said Sebring being a stockholder of said Company as herein found, is a bar to recovery of said claim in this action against a .co-stoclcholder of the assignor of plaintiff of said claim." And it is insisted in behalf of the defendants that there was a recovery within the letter and spirit of the section of the Oode to which reference has just been made. It is true that the plaintiff's right to recover for the Sebring claim was defeated. That defeat, however, falls short of a recovery by the defendants upon that cause of action.
In Burns v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. (135 N. Y. 268) the section of the Oode relied upon was construed. In that case the complaint set forth separately three distinct causes of action which were put in issue, and on the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited as to two of them, but had a verdict as to the other, and it was held that the defendant was not entitled to costs, and in the course of the opinion delivered it was said: " In such cases, if the defendant intends to claim costs he should ask for an affirmative verdict or finding in his favor that will have the effect of disposing of the cause of action as to which the plaintiff has failed. If the Legislature intended to allow a defendant who succeeds in defeating a separate cause of action, stated in the plaintiff's complaint, to recover costs it would have used some other word to designate the form of the judgment in. his favor and upon which the right depended. It is only when' he recovers upon one or more of the separate causes of action that costs follow, and in the absence of an actual verdict, finding or judgment in his favor this condition is not satisfied. Hence the order appealed-from was right in so far as it denied costs to the defendant." (See, also, McCarthy v. Innis, 15 N. Y. Supp. 855; S. C., 61 Hun, 354; Cooper v. Jolly, 30 id. 224; S. C. affd., 96 N. Y. 667; Dougherty v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 3 App. Div. 317.)
The foregoing views lead to a modification of the orders.
Orders modified and the clerk directed to tax one bill of costs and taxable disbursements in favor of the plaintiff and to tax the referee's fees, fifteen dollars, in fourteen ' actions, and the taxable disbursements pertaining to each action, not taxing the same item, except referee's fees, in more 'than one action, and the order as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Adams and Ward, JJ., concurred; Follett and Green, JJ., dissented.