Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898

Martin v. Tarbox

Martin v. Tarbox
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 15, 1898
23 Misc. 761; 51 N.Y.S. 319

Counsel

R. Crawford, for respondent., S. E. Duffey, for appellant.

Martin v. Tarbox

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from must he affirmed. The statute requires us to award costs where the judgment is affirmed. As both parties have appealed, it seems that while awarding costs against each, we should also provide that they be offset. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent oñ each appeal. The order of affirmance should contain a provision for an offset of the costs. Board of Supervisors v. Bristol, 58 How. Pr. 3.

Present: Beexman, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.