Stevens v. Cent. Nat. Bank of Boston,

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtVANN
Citation61 N.E. 904,168 N.Y. 560
PartiesSTEVENS et al. v. CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF BOSTON et al.
Decision Date26 November 1901

168 N.Y. 560
61 N.E. 904

STEVENS et al.
v.
CENTRAL NAT.
BANK OF BOSTON et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 26, 1901.


Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.

Action by Aaron R. Stevens and others against the Central National Bank of Boston and others. From a judgment of the appellate division (54 N. Y. Supp. 673) dismissing an appeal from a judgment awarding costs and an extra allowance for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

This action was commenced in the supreme court of the state of New York by bondholders of the Lebanon Springs Railroad Company to procure a sale of that company's road to set aside a decree rendered in another action as fraudulent, to enjoin certain proceedings by the defendants in the circuit court of the United States, and for other relief. Upon the first trial the complaint was dismissed, but upon appeal to the general term the judgment was reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. 57 Hun, 498,11 N. Y. Supp. 268. The second trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs, setting aside said decree, ordering a sale of the road, enjoining the defendants from taking certain proceedings in any court, directing a reference, and for other relief, with costs, including an extra allowance of $2,000. This judgment was subsequently affirmed, with costs, by the general term and by this court. 69 Hun, 617, 23 N. Y. Supp. 1147; 144 N. Y. 50, 39 N. E. 68. While the record was still in the court of appeals, upon application of the defendants it was removed by a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States, which reversed the judgment of the state courts in some particulars, and remanded the cause to this court for further proceedings. 169 U. S. 432, 18 Sup. Ct. 403, 42 L. Ed. 807. The record was thereupon remitted to this court by a mandate, the material part of which is as follows: ‘It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said court of appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that the said appellants recover against the said respondents, Aaron R. Stevens et al., $1,047.70 for their costs herein expended, and have execution therefor. And it is further ordered that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said court of appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.’ The concluding part of the opinion thus referred to in the mandate is as follows: ‘The conclusions we have reached are that the judgment of the supreme court of New York, and of the court of appeals affirming the same, are erroneous in so far as they command the Central National Bank of Boston, the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, and other holders of the receiver's certificates, whose rights as such holders were adjudged by the circuit court of the United States, to appear before the referee appointed by the supreme court in the present case, and which enjoin the Central National Bank of Boston and others, whose rights have been adjudged by the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York, from proceeding with the sale under the decree of that court. The judgments of the supreme court of New York and of the court of appeals in these particulars are accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.’ A motion made in the supreme court of the United States to amend its mandate in certain particulars was denied, and an opinion was filed, the substance of which is as follows: ‘The judgment of this court does not undertake to affect or reverse the judgment of the supreme court of the state of New York, except in so far as that judgment sought to restrain the Central National Bank of Boston and other plaintiffs in error from proceeding under and in accordance with the decree of the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York, and to compel them to again try in the supreme court of New York matters tried and determined in the circuit court. As between the other parties, the judgment of the supreme court of New York was, of course, left undisturbed,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. Davis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1992
    ...allowed to indemnify a party against the expense of successfully asserting ... rights in court." (Stevens v. Central National Bank, 168 N.Y. 560, 566, 61 N.E. 904 [1901]; see also, 22 N.Y.Jur.2d Costs § Indeed, many types of relief similar to 8303-a sanctions incorporate no set monetary lim......
  • Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1978
    .... ' " (Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416, 418, 280 P. 181, 182, quoting in part from Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank of Boston (1901) 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904, 906; emphasis...
  • Morgan v. Department of Social Sec., 28637
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 7, 1942
    ...He is never required to pay the costs incurred by the unsuccessful party.' In the case of Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank of Boston, 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904, the court quoted the general rule that the successful party, although he may be denied costs, never pays them. The court of appeals of......
  • Caruso's Will, In re, No. A--83
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 7, 1955
    ...the successful party against the expense of vindicating a right invaded by the adverse party. Stevens v. Central National Bank of Boston, 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904 (Ct.App.1901); Musser v. Good, 11 Serg. & R., Pa., 247 (Sup.Ct.1824); 20 C.J.S., Costs, § 1, p. Such has been the rule at law I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. Davis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1992
    ...allowed to indemnify a party against the expense of successfully asserting ... rights in court." (Stevens v. Central National Bank, 168 N.Y. 560, 566, 61 N.E. 904 [1901]; see also, 22 N.Y.Jur.2d Costs § Indeed, many types of relief similar to 8303-a sanctions incorporate no set monetary lim......
  • Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1978
    .... ' " (Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416, 418, 280 P. 181, 182, quoting in part from Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank of Boston (1901) 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904, 906; emphasis...
  • Morgan v. Department of Social Sec., 28637
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 7, 1942
    ...He is never required to pay the costs incurred by the unsuccessful party.' In the case of Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank of Boston, 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904, the court quoted the general rule that the successful party, although he may be denied costs, never pays them. The court of appeals of......
  • Caruso's Will, In re, No. A--83
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 7, 1955
    ...the successful party against the expense of vindicating a right invaded by the adverse party. Stevens v. Central National Bank of Boston, 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904 (Ct.App.1901); Musser v. Good, 11 Serg. & R., Pa., 247 (Sup.Ct.1824); 20 C.J.S., Costs, § 1, p. Such has been the rule at law I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT