Pfeiffer v. Joline — 114 N.Y.S. 219

Majority

p. 219

PFEIFFER v. JOLINE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 15, 1909.)

Headnote

Costs (§ 276^[1] )—Remedies foe Collection—Exclusion fbom Paeticipation of Tbial.

The exclusion of defendants from participating in the trial because of the nonpayment of costs, imposed as terms for a continuance, is erroneous.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. § 1048; Dec. Dig. § 276. *3

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

p. 220

Action by Joseph Pfeiffer against Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, as receivers of the New York City Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before GIRDERSBEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOEE and GUY, JJ.

Anthony J. Ernest, for appellants.

Alexander & Green, for respondent.

The exclusion of the defendants from participation in the trial because of the nonpayment of costs, imposed as terms for continuance, was without warrant in law. Barber v. Flauman, 30 Mise. Rep. 627, 62 N. Y. Supp. 784 .

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.