Case Name: Martha Haines and Another, Respondents, v. William A. Patterson and Others, Respondents; James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., and Others, Appellants; Elizabeth Patterson v. Jane W. McCunn and Others; James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., v. Thomas McCunn, Executor, etc., and Others
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-05
Citations: 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: Martha Haines and Another, Respondents, v. William A. Patterson and Others, Respondents; James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., and Others, Appellants. Elizabeth Patterson v. Jane W. McCunn and Others. James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., v. Thomas McCunn, Executor, etc., and Others.
Judges: Present — Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Parker, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 94
Pages: 109–109

Head Matter:
Martha Haines and Another, Respondents, v. William A. Patterson and Others, Respondents; James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., and Others, Appellants. Elizabeth Patterson v. Jane W. McCunn and Others. James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., v. Thomas McCunn, Executor, etc., and Others.
Amendment of a judgment — denied on the ground of laches.
Where parties delay for some fifteen years, before mailing any attempt to collect their costs, their motion to amend an interlocutory judgment in an action in which they are not parties, for the purpose of effecting such collection, will be denied on the ground of laches.
Appeal by the defendant, James M. Gano, as executor, etc., and by Shipman, Larocque & Olioate, as successors in interest of his attorneys in two certain actions, entitled Cano v. McCunn and Patterson v. McCunn, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 2d day of April, 1895, nunc pro tunc as of the 8th day of March, 1895, denying the appellants’ motion for an order amending an interlocutory judgment by awarding costs and allowances to the appellants, and also from an order made at the New York Special Term and entered in said clerk’s office outlie Sth day of March, 1895, denying the appellants’ motion for an order allowing execution to issue to collect the amount of certain costs and allowances.
A. Davidson, for the appellants.
Christopher Fine and Chas. Fox, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
The parties having delayed some fifteen years before making any attempt to collect their costs, we think it is too late now for them to move to amend a decree in an action in which they are not parties for the purpose of effecting such collection.
The orders appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Present — Van Brunt, P. J., O'Brien and Parker, JJ.
Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.