¶1Decided, that it was a proper case for double costs, and that the remittitur never having been filed in the court below, this court has jurisdiction of the cause, and ordered that on the Defendant in error returning the remittitur to the clerk of this court, the motion for costs be granted, and the judgment be corrected so as to allow costs according to the notice of motion, without costs of this motion.
3 How. Pr. 236
Burckle v. Luce
Decided April 15, 1848
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1848-04-15
This cause was decided by tMs court at the last January term, in favor of the Defendant in error, and the judgment of the Supreme Court affirmed, and the usual order entered for a remittitur, and the Defendant in error being about to move for double costs in tMs court, it was stipulated by and between the attorneys, for the respective parties to admit and agree upon the following facts for the purpose of such motion, viz:. “ The Defendant, Luce, was a deputy sheriff of the…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1906
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1848-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →