DocketNumber: No. CV94 04 79 13S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7641, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 323
Judges: FLYNN, J.
Filed Date: 6/19/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
General Statutes §
As used in law the word accrue has a meaning which differs from the ordinary meaning of the term.1
The Court holds that for the purposes of §
On November 11, 1997, the plaintiff's attorney made a firm commitment to pay the plaintiff's medical expert $3000.00. The court holds that this cost "accrued" on that November 11, 1997 date. Although the doctor ultimately did testify, this charge was non refundable regardless of whether the doctor testified since he canceled appointments upon agreeing to make himself available that day. The defendant's offer of judgment was not made until November 14, 1998. The plaintiff did not accept it. The CT Page 7642 plaintiffs received a verdict on November 18, 1997 for $45000.00 less that what the defendant had offered. The court holds that although the Doctor had not testified on November 11, 1997 or on November 14, 1997, the plaintiff's duty to pay him had become a vested obligation. It had accrued. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his $3000.00 costs for the fee charged under provisions of §
The objection to the bill of costs is overruled.
The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment on the verdict and tax costs in accordance with the plaintiff's Bill of Costs in the amount of $3,321.40., which includes the $3000.00 in dispute and other taxable costs about which there was no controversy.
FLYNN, J.