From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Tarbox

Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Apr 1, 1898
23 Misc. 761 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

April, 1898.

R. Crawford, for respondent.

S.E. Duffey, for appellant.


The judgment appealed from must be affirmed. The statute requires us to award costs where the judgment is affirmed. As both parties have appealed, it seems that while awarding costs against each, we should also provide that they be offset. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent on each appeal. The order of affirmance should contain a provision for an offset of the costs. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3.

Present: BEEKMAN, P.J., GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Martin v. Tarbox

Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Apr 1, 1898
23 Misc. 761 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Martin v. Tarbox

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE W. MARTIN, Respondent, v . CHARLES W. TARBOX, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court — Appellate Term

Date published: Apr 1, 1898

Citations

23 Misc. 761 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Citing Cases

Cochran v. Whitney

The order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed. Inasmuch as the Municipal Court Act (§ 345, subd. 3)…