¶1There was, in fact, but one defence in the action. The constable undoubtedly acted under the direction of the plaintiff in the execution. It was for him to conduct the defence. By severing in their defence, the defendants have become entitled to two bills of costs. Having thus succeeded in recovering double the amount of costs prescribed for a single defence, I do not feel authorized to increase the recovery still more hy granting to either party an extra allowance. The motion must therefore be denied.
9 How. Pr. 231
Matthewson v. Thompson
Decided January 15, 1854
New York Supreme Court · decided 1854-01-15
—Two defendants were sued, the one the plaintiff in an execution, and the other the constable who held the execution, for taking property of the plaintiff by virtue of the execution against another person. The defendants appeared by different attorneys, and, having succeeded in their defence, each moved for an extra allowance of costs.
Decided 1854-01-15