Opinion

People ex rel. Sutliff v. Board of Sup'rs of Fulton County

  • 20 N.Y.S. 280
  • 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 928
  • 65 Hun 622
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 29, 1892
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Motion for reargument, on ground that section 3280 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and section 1 of chapter 63 of the Laws of 1886, were overlooked or misapprehended. The laws in question were, not overlookéd ór misapprehended. -This proceeding is against the board of supervisors as a board or body, and not against the individual supervisors of Fulton county. The defendant is to make a return as a board. The individual members are not to make a return of- their separate, individual actions. Hence we think the laws referred to are not applicable to the question involved in tills case. The defendant should state the amount of fees demanded, measured by section 2135 of the Code, and the' order heretofore entered may be so modified as to require the defendant, within 10 days after the entry thereof, to serve upon the relator’s attorney a bill of items of the fees claimed by it, properly verified, which, if disputed by the relator, maybe taxed before a judge of this court or at a special term thereof, upon notice by either party, and that, upon the payment thereof- if not disputed, or as taxed by such judge or court, then the defendant forthwith file its return. Motion for reargument de-, nied. Order modified, as per memorandum, without costs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.