Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wend. 283

Ives v. Jones

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1828

New York Supreme Court · decided 1828-10-15

Question of costs. On the 26th September, the plaintiff served a replication on the defendant’s attorney, and at the same time delivered a notice of trial for the Oneida circuit, to beholden on the 6th of October. On the SOth September, the defendant gave notice of a motion for a commission, accompanied with an affidavit of the maten'ality of the evidence which he wished to obtain.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1842

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1828-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

¶2The rule laid down in 1 Johns. Cases, 391, is, that if the defendant intends to sue out a commission, he ought to give notice of it before he receives notice of trial, or within a reasonable time after issue is joined, according to the circumstances of the case, and such notice will stay the proceedings. But if he waits until he receives notice of trial, before he gives notice of his intention to apply for a commission, he must pay the costs to that time. This rule has never been intentionally departed from by the court. In all cases where costs have been ordered to be paid, they have been so ordered upon the ground that the defendant did not use due diligence in giving notice of his motion. No such charge can be made against the defendant in this case. Notice of trial was served with the replication, and the defendant gave as early notice as was possible under the circumstances. He is, therefore, entitled to his motion unconditionally, and the costs must abide the event of the cause.

/1/wend/283 · .json · Public domain