Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Sherman v. Daggett 3 How. Pr. 426

← Cases

Sherman v. Daggett

3 How. Pr. 426 Court COURT OF APPEALS, English

Contents

Majority

p. 426
COURT OF APPEALS,
MARCH TERM, 1849.
Sherman & Bacheldor vs. Daggett & Green.

Headnote

The granting or withholding general costs of the canse, in equity cases, rests in the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction, (with very few exceptions.) Any appeal will not lie upon the mere question of costs.
The Sujrreme Court, in August last, made a decree in favor of the complainants in a suit in equity, but without requiring the Defendants to pay the general costs in the cause. The complainants appealed from so much of the decree as denied costs.
S. Stevens, for the Respondent, moved to dismiss the appeal.
A. Taber, for the Appellants.

The Court held, that with very few exceptions, of which this case was not one, the granting or withholding of costs in equity causes rests in the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction, and that an appeal would not lie upon the mere question of costs. (Rogers v. Holly, 18 Wend. 350 .)

Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeals at the last March term, (1849,) in pursuance of a number of decisions heretofore made, (Mayor, &c. of New York v. Schermerhorn and others, ante, page 334, and subsequent decisions on differentpages,) dismissed several appeals, (upon motion,) in cases where they were brought under the code, from orders, decrees or judgments made and entered previous to the 1st July last. They should have been appealed under the old law.

Cases cited