
    HERMAN H. EISNER, Respondent, v. NANET HAMEL and others, Appellants.
    
      Attorney — when cha/rged with costs of motion.
    
    Defendant’s attorney applied for an order dismissing the complaint herein, for want of prosecution, on the ground that the parties had, by a collusive agreement, settled the suit, in order to deprive him of his costs. The motion was denied, without leave to renew. Subsequently, defendant’s attorney applied for leave to renew the motion, which was refused. Held, that as the motion was made by the attorney for his own benefit, and not for that of his client, that the costs of the motion were properly imposed upon him.
    Appeal from an order denying leave to renew a motion, and imposing costs on tbe attorney applying for such leave.
    
      Henry H. Morange, for appellants. 8. 8. Swain, for respondent.
   Opinion

per Ouriam.

Present — Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.  