Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Wend. 127

Lamb v. Coe

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1838

New York Supreme Court · decided 1838-06-15

<p>Attorney’s fee attending prepared for the argument of a bill of exceptions, pursuant to notice from the adverse party, is taxable, although he do not actually attend.</p> <p>A defendant who obtains a verdict, which is confirmed by the court, may en. ter upon the record a bill of exceptions taken by the plaintiff at the circuit, and is entitled to an allowance therefor, unless the plaintiff waive the right to bring error.</p> <p>A witness is entitled to an allowance for one day in coming to, and one day in returning from the place of trial, although his residence is only eight miles from such place.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1838-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1883

3 state decisions

10183818401850186018701880decided

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 →

¶1On motion for retaxation of costs, the following points were decided by Mr. Justice Bronson :

¶21. When a witness does not reside in the place where the court is held, he is entitled to an allowance for one day in coming to and one day in reluming from the place of attendance, altough his residence is only eight miles from the court house. The chancellor has given a different rule, 2 Paige, 465 ; but the question was settled in this court several years since.

¶32. Attorney’s fee for attending prepared for the argument of a bill of exceptions, &c. pursuant to notice from the adverse party, is a proper charge, although the attorney does not actually attend. Wilson v. White, 2 Wendell, 265, The change of phraseology in the present statute, 2 R. S. 633, has not altered the rule which prevailed under the old law

¶43. On the trial, the plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, and „ the verdict was for the defendant, in whose favor judgment was finally rendered. The taxing officer allowed for entering the bill of exceptions on the judgment record. A like charge was disallowed in Green v. Green, 1 Wendell, 102; but, under the former statute, it was not the practice to incorporate the bill of exceptions in the record. Under the present statute, it has been held by the court for the correction of errors that the bill should be incorporated in the *128record. If the plaintiff did not wish to bring error, he should have given notice that he waived the right to have the bill inserted in the record. As such notice was not given, the charge was properly allowed.

/19/wend/127 · .json · Public domain