
    Bartolemy J. Olifiers. Pl’ff, v. Perry J. Belmont, et al., Def’ts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, Special Term,
    
    
      Filed May 10, 1895.)
    
    Costs — Separate bills.
    Where a demurrer to an entire complaint in a common law action is sustained, all the defendants, who have separate interests and appeared by separate attorneys, are entitled to separate bills of costs.
    Motion to settle the decision on the order sustaining the demurrer.
    Leavitt, Wood & Keith, for pl’ff; Bowers & Sands, for def’t Belmont ; Chandler, Maxwell & Philip, for def’t Chandler.
   Giegerich, J.

Where a demurrer to an entire complaint in a common-law action is sustained, the right of the defendant to costs is absolute, Tallman v. Bernhard, 75 Hun, 30; 58 St. Rep. 597; and in actions at law, where all of the defendants have succeeded upon the trial, those not united in interest, who have appeared by different attorneys, are entitled to costs of course and as a right. Railway Co. v. Burkard, 40 Hun, 625; Lane v. Van Orden, 11 Abb. N. C. 228; 63 How. Pr. 237. I do not,' therefore think I have any power to direct that only one bill of costs be allowed. Besides, I doubt if such power ought, if it existed, to be exercised in present case, when the defendants. Belmont and Chandler appeared by separate attorneys, who both submitted elaborate briefs. While I do consider it necessary, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to decisions upon demurrers, viz. sections 1010 and 1020, for the court to make separate and formal conclusions of law (2 Rum. Prac. p. 234), as distinguished from a simple statement indicating the disposition made of the demurrer, I see no objection to such a practice, although it is unusual, and accordingly sign the decisions as proposed by the respective defendants Belmont and Chandler.  