Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 A.D. 239

Hewett v. Cook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1902-07-01

Appeal by the plaintiff, Harry A. Hewett, from a judgment of' the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 1st day of February, 1902, dismissing the complaint, with notice of an intention to bring up for review upon such appeal an order of the Supreme Court,, entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th day of January, 1902, requiring the plaintiff to pay ten dollars term costs within twenty-days after entry of…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1962

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chase, J.:

¶1When a party to an action asks a favor the court, as a condition of granting the favor, may impose any reasonable terms. The terms being known, the party asking the favor may refuse to accept the favor on the terms imposed, or he may accept the favor, in which case he is bound to comply with the conditions'.

¶2Costs of a term imposed as a condition of the postponement of a trial are payable immediately. If the costs are not paid immediately the party desiring to proceed with the trial may do so at once. When a party not only asks to have the trial of the action postponed, but also asks for time- to pay the costs imposed as a condition of the postponement, it is not uncommon practice to grant such further favor on condition that if the costs are not paid within the time specified, the complaint shall be dismissed or the answer stricken out as the case may be, on proof of the default.

¶3In this case the plaintiff did not ask for time in which to pay the costs imposed upon him and the defendant did not insist upon the costs being paid immediately as he could have done if he had desired.. Ho condition relating to the future payment of the costs was imposed by the court or accepted by the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff would have accepted a further condition relating to the *241non-payment of costs does not appear. Section 779 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides how motion costs shall be collected. The orders on which the judgment herein is based were made not as a condition for a favor asked by the plaintiff, but they were made months after the Trial Term at which the trial was postponed and after both parties had again noticed the ease for trial.

¶4They constitute an unusual and unauthorized way of collecting motion costs.

¶5Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions denied, with ten dollars costs, and the judgment set aside and vacated.

¶6All concurred, except Fuksman, J., dissenting.

¶7Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions denied, with ten dollars costs, and the judgment vacated.

/75/ad/239 · .json · Public domain