From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eisberg v. Cornell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1912
154 App. Div. 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)

Opinion

December, 1912.


We are of the opinion that the complaint was rightly dismissed as against the defendants Cornell and Willets. It was erroneous, however, to enter a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant Weil. The record shows that as to him the action was discontinued by consent on the trial. That eliminated him from the action, and thereafter no judgment could run either for or against him. If he desired costs against the plaintiff, to which he probably was entitled, he should have entered an order of discontinuance containing a provision for such costs. The judgment must be modified by striking out so much thereof as awards costs to the defendant Weil against the plaintiff, and as modified affirmed with costs to the respondents Cornell and Willets. Ingraham, P.J., McLaughlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ., concurred. Judgment modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondents Cornell and Willets. Order to be settled on notice.


Summaries of

Eisberg v. Cornell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1912
154 App. Div. 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)
Case details for

Eisberg v. Cornell

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES EISBERG, Appellant, v . CHARLES G. CORNELL, JR., and HOWARD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1912

Citations

154 App. Div. 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)

Citing Cases

Pure Oil Company v. Carter

The judgment of discontinuance, with ten dollars costs, was unauthorized. (Code Civ. Proc. § 779; Hyde v.…

Menut Parks Co. v. St. Johnsbury

As applied to common roads, the term, "roadbed", means; "The whole material laid in place and ready for…