Case Name: JOHN J. CORBETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS DE COMEAU, Defendant and Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1879-03-14
Citations: 13 Jones & S. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN J. CORBETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS DE COMEAU, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 45
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
JOHN J. CORBETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS DE COMEAU, Defendant and Appellant.
Before Sedgwick and Van Vorst, JJ.
Decided March 14, 1879.
Disbursement eor printing—when discretion oe court as to WILL NOT BE DISTURBED.
The defendant herein presented to the clerk, upon taxation of his costs, <5kc., upon a successful appeal, an item of $28.80 for printing case and points,- which was objected to by plaintiff as excessive and unnecessary. Defendant presented, in answer, the receipted printed bills and the usual affidavit, and the clerk overruled the objection. Plaintiff thereupon obtained an order to show cause why the taxation should not be set aside, and upon the hearing it was ordered that that tire amount should be reduced to $18.00, from which order defendant appeals.
Held, that the discretion of the judge below in fixing the amount to be allowed as a disbursement, should not be interfered with; also, that the order was not appealable.
Appeal from order entered at special term, reducing defendant’s disbursements for printing case and points on appeal.
Coudert Brothers, for appellants, urged:
I. There is no practice to justify such a motion as was made by the plaintiff. The remedy was by appeal, which should have been founded' on the same papers (Logan v. Thomas, 11 How. Pr. 160; People v. Oaks, 1 Id. 195).
II. It is obvious that the learned judge below made his order on the theory that the successful brief complained of by plaintiff’s attorney was tod long. There was no pretense that the plaintiff had not paid the full amount charged. As to allowance for printing, see Consalus v. Brotherson, 52 How. Pr. 62; Potter v. Carpenter, 56 Id. 89.
Frank W. Severance, for respondents, urged:
I; The order is not appealable. It is a discretionary order. The judge saw fit in his discretion to reduce this item of disbursements, and a general term will not interfere.
II. This lengthy brief, containing, as it does, mostly matter which might be proper as an oral or printed argument, is in no sense points. “Points” are a concise statement of what a party considers the law, with a citation of authorities, and not an argument in extenso (See Gray v. Schenck, 3 How. Pr. 231, holding that it will not be allowed as a disbursement).

Opinion:
Per Curiam
opinion for dismissal of appeal with ten dollars costs.