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

THE GERMAN SAVINGS BANK IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AGATHE HABEL et al., Appellants.

Per Curiam.

The injunction clause in the order did not prohibit the collection of the costs awarded, but the prosecution of the action, or any steps to recover the $400 on deposit in the name of Habel.

Under these circumstances, the costs were collectible and the attorney was justified in issuing the precept. If it had been intended to prevent the collection of the costs, the order should have been broad enough to cover them. That it was not so intended, is shown by the fact sworn to at folio twenty-nine, that the costs became due, and an execution could have been issued for their collection before this action was commenced, and that the omission to do so was casual.

The orders of the Special and General Terms should be reversed and motion denied, with $10 costs of opposing motion and costs of appeal to the General Term and to this court.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GERMAN SAVINGS BANK v. HABEL ET AL
(Mar 2, 1880)