Case Name: George W. Anderson vs. John Vandenburgh and four others
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1845-06
Citations: 1 How. Pr. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: George W. Anderson vs. John Vandenburgh and four others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
George W. Anderson vs. John Vandenburgh and four others.
Original motion papers should he addressed to all the attorneys opposed, otherwise those to whom they are not addressed may appear and take a rule for costs for not moving, even where the motion has keen made.
Motion by plaintiff to set aside and vacate a rule for costs entered in this cause on the 7th June, 1844, and all subsequent proceedings for the collection thereof.—The original motion papers in this cause for reference at June special term, 1844, were addressed to Wm. H. Greene, Esq., Buffalo, as attorney for four of the defendants. Clark and Pattison attorneys for the defendant Vandenburgh, were served with notice of same motion by plaintiff’s attorneys, and appeared and offered to oppose the motion, when it was made by plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel said he had no papers addressed to Clark & Pattison in the cause, the papers he held, were addressed to Wm. H. Greene, Esq., BuSalo. Clark who appeared as counsel for Vandenburgh, supposing there might be two causes between the same parties, waited for another motion to be made until the close of the term, and no other being made, he took a rule for costs against plaintiff for not moving — which was sought to be set aside by plaintiff’s attorneys on this motion, on the ground that the original motion had been made and was opposed.
M. T. Reynolds, Plffs Counsel. Tucker and Ckapo, Plffs Mtys.
E. Clark, Befts Counsel. Clark and Pattison, Befts Mtys.

Opinion:
Jewett, Justice.
Denied the motion with costs on the ground that Clark & Pattison attended the term in good faith, with an intention to oppose the motion as they were bound to do by the notice served on them, and in consequence of the omission of plaintiff's attorneys in addressing their original papers to Clark & Pattison, they had good reason to suppose there might be two causes between the same parties, and took a rule for costs regularly.