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.
Wolfe and others vs. Van Nostrand, 1850 — 2 N.Y. 570 · caselaw · US
General
Wolfe and others vs. Van Nostrand
2 N.Y. 570·New York Court of Appeals·1850·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
Wolfe and others vs. Van Nostrand.
The provision of the code (§ 308) authorizing an extra allowance of costs in certain cases, applies only to the court of origin il jurisdiction, and in reference to a trial in that court.
Wolfe and others brought ejectment in the superior court of the city of New-York, where judgment passed for the defendant. The plaintiff then brought a writ of error to this court, after July I, 1848, and in September last the judgment was affirmed.
S. Stevens, for the defendants in error,
now moved for an additional allowance, pursuant to the 308th section of the code. He said a writ of error was a new suit; and there has been a trial in this court within the definition of a trial as given by the code. He cited sections 8, 252, and 308, 309.
W. Kent, for plaintiff in error.
[MAJORITY — Bronson, Ch. J.]
Bronson, Ch. J.
We think an additional allowance, beyond the costs given by the 307th section of the code, can only be made by the court of original jurisdiction and in reference to the trial in that court.
Motion denied.