Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cow. 460

Waring v. Baret

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1824

New York Supreme Court · decided 1824-02-15

Wallis moved for a rule that the attorneys for the plaintiff pay the defendant $100, being a part of his costs which had been taxed m this cause, and that John Brady pay the balance. The suit was instituted upon a promissory note, negotiable, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, who, at the time >of the commencement of the suit, and ever since, resided without this state, and no security for costs had been filed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1824-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1907

3 state decisions

10182418301840185018601870188018901900decided

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 →

Curia.

¶1It is enough to subject the attorneys to the costs, that the nominal plaintiff was a non-resident of the state at the commencement of the suit. By the rule referred to, their liability is confined to 100 dollars. We grant the rule that they pay this sum; and that Brady pay the balance.(a)

¶2Rule : On filing affidavits in this cause, by which it appears that the plaintiff is a non-resident of the state of New York, and that he was such non-resident at the time of the commencement of this suit, and that this suit was prosecuted for the benefit of J. Brady, the assignee of the note on which the action was founded; and on motion on the part of the defendant in this cause, and after hearing counsel for D. B. & J. M. attorneys for the plaintiff in this cause, ordered, that D. B. & J. M. Esquires, pay to the defendant his costs accrued in this cause, to an amount not exceeding the sum of 1U0 dollars ; and that the said J. Brady pay to the the defendant the balance of said costs, and the costs of this motion.

¶3 In Norton v. Rich, (20 John. 47,) there was a rule for an attachment against the assignee, in the first instance; it appearing that the taxed bill had been demanded of him.

/2/cow/460 · .json · Public domain