
    Ten Broeck vs. De Witt.
    ALBANY,
    Feb. 1834.
    Where a defendant pays the costs of a shit to the plaintiff, although informed by a counsellor of this court that the plaintiff is not authorized to receive the same, the attornies for the plaintiff will be permitted to collect such costs, notwithstanding the payment.
    The defendant paid the damages and coéts recovered in this ease to the plaintiff, and subsequently the attornies for the plaintiff issued an execution for the costs. The defendant moved to set aside the execution; which motion was resisted by proof4 that previous to such payment the defendant was advised by a counsellor of this court that the plaintiff was not authorized to receive the costs.
    
   The Court,

the Chief Justice presiding,

refused to set aside the execution; holding that the information received by the defendant was equivalent to a notice from the attornies not to pay the costs to the plaintiff, and that the attornies. therefore, were entitled to be protected by the court.  