
    Martha Haines et al., App’lts, v. William A. Patterson et al., Resp’ts. Elizabeth Patterson, Resp’t, v. Jane W. McCunn et al., App’lts. James M. Gano, as Executor, etc., Resp’t, v. Thomas McCunn, as Executor, etc., et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed May 17, 1895.)
    
    Costs — Laches.
    It is too late for parties, after having delayed some fifteen years before making any attempt to collect their costs, to move to amend a decree in an action, in which they are not parties, for the purpose of effecting such collection.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to amend an interlocutory judgment.
    The cause first above entitled was commenced December 7, 1892, its object being to partition certain real estate. On Deeember 5, 1894, an interlocutory judgment therein was entered by which the rights of the owners of the property involved in the action and those of the various incumbrances thereon were determined. On January 31, 1895, Shipman, Larocque & Choate, Esqs., acting for themselves and as attorneys for James M. Glano, executor, etc., procured an order, entitled in the two actions of Patterson v. McCunn and Gano v. McCunn, to show cause why the judgments in said actions (entered respectively, November 1, 1881, and July 1, 1880, nunc pro tune as of January 10, 1877) should not be amended, and why leave to issue exception for costs in said action should not be granted. Before the hearing of the motion on said order, the same parties gave notice of motion for resettlement and amendment of the said interlocutory judgment in Haines v. Patterson, so that said judgment provide for the costs in the two other causes, with interest from January 7, 1877; and both motions came on to be heard together.
    
      A. Davidson, for app’lts; Christopher Fine and Chas. Fox, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The parties having delayed some fifteen years, before making any attempt to collect their costs, we think it is too-late now for them to move to amend a decree in an action in which they are not parties for the purpose of effecting such collection. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  