Hyperlawhypertext legal database Chester Rolling-Mills v. Hopatcong 16 N.Y.S. 825

← Cases

Chester Rolling-Mills v. Hopatcong

16 N.Y.S. 825 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1891-12-14 English

Delivered by Pratt, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 825
The Hopatcong. The Musconetcong. Chester Rolling-Mills v. The Hopatcong et al. Phœnix Iron Co. v. Same.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 14, 1891.)

Headnote

Costs—Enfokcbment of Liens against Vessels.
The repeal of the former Code of Procedure, which prescribed and regulated costs and allowances in civil actions, did not affect the provision of Laws 1862, c. 482, § 19, that, in proceedings under that act for the collection of demands against vessels, the costs and allowances should be the same as in civil actions upon a trial.
Appeals from special term, Orange county.
Proceedings by the Phcenix Iron Company and the Chester Rolling-Mills to enforce demands against the vessels Hopatcong and Musconetcong, their tackle, etc., under Laws 1862, c. 482, providing for the collection of demands against ships and vessels. The claimants appeal from orders granting allowances, in addition to costs, to the owner of the vessels, the prevailing party. The appeals were heard together. Affirmed. Por opinion on former appeal, see 6 H. Y. Supp. 215. .
Argued before Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
Abbett & Schmitt, for appellants. Harvey Weed, (E. A. Brewster, of counsel,) for respondent.

These proceedings are based upon the act of 1862,[1] and the allowances from which these appeals are brought were such as were authorized

1 Laws 1862, c. 482, § 24, provides: “Judgment for costs shall be rendered in favor of the successful party as in personal actions, and the successful party shall be entitled to recover the costs and allowances provided for in the Code of Procedure in civil actions.

p. 826
by that act. The costs and allowances granted by that act were not set forth bodily in the statute. They were incorporated into it by reference to the Code of Procedure then in existence, and became a portion of the act as effectually as if they had been set forth in words. The subsequent repeal of the Code of Procedure did not affect the act of 1862. That stands as it did before. The allowances made were therefore proper, and are affirmed.