Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARY CONNOLLY, petitioner-respondent, v. GUARDIAN CASUALTY INSURANCECOMPANY OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK, defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the opinion below for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Fallon in his opinion. We have nothing to add excepting this: We have examined the contention of the appellant that "the counsel fee allowed to counsel for the respondent is excessive." We think it is not. It was $250, and in the circumstances disclosed by the record was quite justified. The respondent is entitled to costs in this court.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CONNOLLY v. GUARDIAN CASUALTY, c., N.Y
(Jan 5, 1934)