32 How. Pr. 182 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1866
Dissenting Opinion
I am inclined to think that the twenty dollars paid by the attorney for the plaintiff for a copy of the stenographer’s minutes, cannot properly be called an expense or disbursement necessarily incurred in the action. It may have been convenient and even prudent for him to procure such copy, but I am inclined to think it cannot properly be said to have been necessary.
The special provision in section 256 of the Code, allowing" the expense, or one-half of the expense of the copy for the judge, as a disbursement by the prevailing party, tends to show this, I think. (See Hamilton agt. Butler, 30 How. Pr. R. 36.)
Upon the whole, though considering the affidavit of Mr. Brown, the attorney for the plaintiff, I do not consider the question free from doubt.
Lead Opinion
I think that whatever conduces ■ to the better prosecution of the controversy is necessary. "What prudence dictates is necessary ; without it the interests of the party would be unsafe.
Order of special term affirmed.
Barnard, J., concurred.