Case Name: FOX v. MULLER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-05-01
Citations: 64 N.Y.S. 388
Docket Number: 
Parties: FOX v. MULLER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 64
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
(31 Misc. Rep. 470.)
FOX v. MULLER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 1, 1900.)
1. Action—Severance.
There is no authority for severing an action, after verdict against all the defendants, on the ground that plaintiff is entitled to recover more costs as against some of them than against the others.
2. Judgments—Rendition—Costs.
Judgment may be entered for different sums against several defendants, where plaintiff is entitled to recover more costs as against some of them than against the others.
Appeal from city court of New York, general term.
Action by John J. Fox against George Muller and others. From -an order of the general term of the city court of the city of New York (62 N. Y. Supp. 1129) affirming an order denying a motion to .sever the action so that judgment may be entered against the defendants separately, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
William T. Matthies, for appellant.
Hoffman & Hoffman, for respondent Muller.
Max D. Steuer, for respondent Bendit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
There seems to be no authority for severing an notion after verdict against all the defendants. If the costs awarded against the defendants Muller by the interlocutory judgment have not been collected, when the time comes to enter final judgment they may be taxed as and included in the judgments against the Mullers.. Code Civ. Proc. § 779. There is no reason why the plaintiff may not enter judgment for different sums against the several defendants. Section 1246 directs the clerk to docket judgments separately against each judgment debtor.
The order applied for is unnecessary, and the order denying it must be affirmed, with costs.