
    City Court.
    
      Special Term
    
    May, 1887.
    HOWELL against VElTH et al.
    Defendants appearing by different attorneys and interposing sepa- ■ rate answers are not entitled to separate bills of costs, if the attorneys so appearing are partners, or if one is the clerk of the other.
   McAdam, Ch. J.

The defendants, having interposed separate answers by different attorneys, are presumably entitled to separate bills of costs; but the plaintiff destroyed this presumption by proof that one of the attorneys who appeared is a clerk of the other attorney, occupying the same office. It was, therefore, in legal effect, an appearance by the same attorney. There was no necessity for a separate defense (Perry v. Livingston, 6 How. Pr. 404). The rule is the same where defendants appear by separate attorneys who are partners (6 How. Pr. 9; 5 Id. 104; 15 Abb. Pr. 75; 16 Barb. 593). The cases relied on by the defendant do not conflict with these "views.

Taxation affirmed.  