Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Town of Pelham, of Westchester County, Respondent, 1896 — 148 N.Y. 737 · caselaw · US
General
The Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Town of Pelham, of Westchester County, Respondent
148 N.Y. 737·New York Court of Appeals·1896·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York, Appellant, v. The Town of Pelham, of Westchester County, Respondent.
Costs. Where leave to withdraw an appeal is granted “upon payment?, ol all costs before notice of argument," the costs referred to mean those.: in the Court of Appeals.
(Argued January 6, 1896;
decided January 14, 1896.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made at the December term, 1894, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granted, a new trial. (See 83 Hun, 96.)
The action was brought to recover the amount of eight certificates of indebtedness of the town of Pelham, purporting to have been issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter-193, Laws of 1877.
On December 10, 1895, a motion to withdraw the appeal was granted “upon payment of all costs before notice of argument.”
Thereupon the respondent moved to amend the decision and remittitur so as to read “ upon payment by the appellant of all costs of this action in all courts incurred before the notice of argument in this court.”
William L. Snyder for motion.
Kelly & Macrae opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, without costs.
Held, costs referred to in decision mean costs in this court. (In re Water Commissioners of Amsterdam, 104 N. Y. 677.)