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.
Virginia K. Hascall, Appellant, v. Vincent C. King, Jr., and Anna Louisa King, Individually, and as Executor and Executrix of and Trustees under the Will of Vincent C. King, Deceased, Respondents, and Mamie K. Smith et al., Appellants, 1901 — 165 N.Y. 288 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Virginia K. Hascall, Appellant, v. Vincent C. King, Jr., and Anna Louisa King, Individually, and as Executor and Executrix of and Trustees under the Will of Vincent C. King, Deceased, Respondents, and Mamie K. Smith et al., Appellants
165 N.Y. 288·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
Virginia K. Hascall, Appellant, v. Vincent C. King, Jr., and Anna Louisa King, Individually, and as Executor and Executrix of and Trustees under the Will of Vincent C. King, Deceased, Respondents, and Mamie K. Smith et al., Appellants.
Appeal — Costs. When the Court of Appeals awards to a party costs in the trial court, the award carries with it not only the taxable costs and taxable disbursements, but such further sum, if any, by way of an extra allowance, as that court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may award.
(Argued January 7, 1901;
decided January 15, 1901.)
Motion to amend remittitur. (See 162 N. Y. 131.)
Peter B. Olney for motion.
William A. Boyd opposed.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The remittitur should be so amended as to award in terms two separate bills of costs to the appellants in order to give effect to the decision of the court as made and intended to be expressed. But so much of the motion as aslis that this court further amend the remittitur so as to give leave to said appellants respectively to apply to the .trial court to award an extra allowance of costs is denied, without considering the merits of the application, for the reason that the understanding of this court is that when it awards to a party costs in the trial court the award carries with it not only the taxable costs and taxable disbursements, but such further sum (if any) by way of an extra allowance as that court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may award.
The remittitur should be amended in accordance with this memorandum, with ten dollars costs, and to that end the Supreme Court' is requested to return the remittitur to this court.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin and Vann, JJ., concur.
Motion granted in accordance with memorandum.