Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 How. Pr. 279

Moore v. Westervelt

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1857-07-15

Present, Duer, Ch. J., Hoffman, Woodruff and Slosson, Justices. This action was commenced several years ago, and has been several times in the court of appeals, and finally resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on the 14th of March, 1856, for $540, subject to the opinion of the court at general term, and judgment in the meantime suspended.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1880

3 state decisions

101857186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the court—Duer, Ch. Justice.

¶1The court are not satisfied they have power to order judgment nunc pro tunc, as of a date prior to the actual judgment, to enable a party to affect the amount of his costs. The motion is, therefore, denied, without costs. The court, however, are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to have his costs adjusted according to the Code as it existed at the time of the verdict, as respects all items prior to that date. The “ recovery,” which gives the right to costs, mentioned in the statute, means the verdict,” and not the judgment. An order may be entered directing the clerk accordingly—“ That the said clerk adjust the plaintiff’s costs herein, up to and including the verdict rendered herein, on the 14th of March, 1856, under the Code of 1852, and the subsequent costs of the said plaintiff under the present Code.”

¶2Such an order was entered, and the costs adjusted by the clerk in conformity therewith.

/14/howpr/279 · .json · Public domain