Case Name: John D. Loring, Respondent, v. Alexander E. Morrison and Patrick Murphy, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-01
Citations: 25 A.D. 139
Docket Number: 
Parties: John D. Loring, Respondent, v. Alexander E. Morrison and Patrick Murphy, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
John D. Loring, Respondent, v. Alexander E. Morrison and Patrick Murphy, Appellants.
Costs where the recovery is less than fifty dollars, if interest be deducted—costs to abide the event, awa/rded on appeal — an offer of judgment must include costs.
The fact that a recovery by the plaintiff of a trifle over fifty dollars in an action brought upon a note includes interest upon the sum found to he due on the note, which latter sum, without the interest, is less than fifty dollars, does not bar the plaintiff’s right to costs under section 3228 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Where on appeal a new trial is granted, costs to abide the event, the party who succeeds upon the new trial should have the costs of such appeal.
Where an offer of judgment, made under section 738 .of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not include costs, it is ineffective.
Appeal by the defendants, Alexander E. Morrison and another, from an order of the County Court of Orange county, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 12th day of November, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a review of the taxation of the costs taxed in favor of the plaintiff.
A. H. F. Seeger, for the appellants.
J. A. Thompson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
"Willard Bartlett, J.:
When the Appellate Division granted a new trial of this action it directed that the costs should abide the event. (Loring v. Morrison, 15 App. Div. 498.) That direction meant that the party who succeeded upon the new trial should have the costs of the appeal to this court. A motion to resettle our order, so as to give costs only to the defendants in case they should he successful, was denied, and the correctness or propriety of the direction as to costs is not open for consideration upon the present appeal.
On the last trial the plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of fifty dollars and eight cents. This was made up of forty-five dol-. lars and fifty cents found to be due to the plaintiff upon the note in •suit, and four dollars and fifty-eight cents of interest thereon. The appellants insist that this interest cannot he regarded as part of the recovery for the purpose of fixing the right to costs, and that, inas much as the principal sum due on the note was less than fifty dollars, the plaintiff is not entitled to costs under section 3228 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It seems to us, however, immaterial how the verdict is made up, if the total amount awarded by the jury equals or exceeds the sum of fifty dollars. We agree with the learned county judge that the provision of section 3228 of the Code, relating to this matter, deals only with the final result of the action.
The amount demanded in the complaint was upwards of seventy-four dollars. The defendants offered to allow judgment for sixty dollars, and it is argued that the plaintiff cannot recover costs, because the judgment rendered is not more favorable than was the offer. . The offer, however, cannot be regarded as having had any effect whatever, inasmuch as it did not include costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 738; Leslie v. Walrath, 45 Hun, 18.)
The . costs appear to have been taxed by the county judge in strict accordance with the statute, and the order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed. If the taxation involves any hardship to' the appellants it is wholly due to the requirements of law, from which we have no power to relieve them.
All concurred.
Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal.