
    Rosie A. Forrest, Resp’t, v. Charles H. Thompson et al., App’lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February, 1887.)
    
    Costs—When defendants entitled to separate bills—Code Crv. Pro., § 3229.
    Defendants not united in interest interposing separate answers in good faith by different attorneys are entitled to separate bills of costs.
    Appeal from an order made by the trial judge limiting the defendants to but one bill of costs.
    
      J. Cummins and others, for app’lts; Sarlton & W. E. Iliff, for resp’t.
   McAdam, C. J.

The defendants are not united in interest, interposed separate answers by different attorneys, and there is no evidence that the several appearances were in bad faith, and for the purpose of incurring costs. The defendants were, therefore, entitled to separate bills of costs (Lane v. Van Orden, 11 Abb. N. C., 228; Royce v. Jones, 23 Hun, 452; Delaware L. and W. R. R. Co. v. Burkhard, 2 N. Y. State R., 184, Code, § 3229), and the order limiting them to one bill must be reversed, with costs.

Nehrbas and Hyatt, JJ., concur.  