From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hyde v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 1906
112 App. Div. 76 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)

Opinion

March 22, 1906.

Sanders Shanks [ Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Frederick W. Sparks, for the respondent.


The order should be reversed and the motion granted. The judgment was unauthorized; judgment may not be entered for costs allowed on a motion (Code Civ. Proc. § 779). Moreover, the order of discontinuance should not have been absolute, as it was. It could only impose the costs as a condition of discontinuance, and then the plaintiff would have been free to pay the costs and discontinue, or go on with the action.

Order reversed with costs and disbursements, and motion granted with costs.

HIRSCHBERG, P.J., WOODWARD, RICH and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.


Summaries of

Hyde v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 1906
112 App. Div. 76 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
Case details for

Hyde v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN HYDE, Appellant, v . CHARLES W. ANDERSON, Individually, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 22, 1906

Citations

112 App. Div. 76 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
98 N.Y.S. 62

Citing Cases

Pure Oil Company v. Carter

The judgment of discontinuance, with ten dollars costs, was unauthorized. (Code Civ. Proc. § 779; Hyde v.…

Foley v. Carter

But this is limited strictly to such costs of a motion as do not authorize the entry of judgment thereon. (…