¶1said the motion ought to prevail. If the plaintiff had appeared and argued his case, and it had appeared that the writ of error was frivolous, it would have been of course to allow double costs. Not having appeared, the court could not know whether the writ of error was frivolous or not, without looking into the record, which would not be done when the plaintiff did not' appear to argue. He thought, therefore, it would be well to adopt the practice of the supreme court in such cases, and accordingly proposed that the judgment be affirmed with double costs, or in the words of the statute, that the plaintiff in error be allowed “ twice the amount of his taxed bill of costs.” The court concurring in the suggestion of the chancellor, a rule was entered accordingly.
25 Wend. 251
Smith v. Pepoon
Decided December 15, 1840
New York Supreme Court · decided 1840-12-15
J. Van Burén appeared for the defendant in error, on the [ *252 ] cause being, called on for argument, and on producing proof *of due service of notice of argument on the attorney for the plaintiff in error, moved that the judgment be affirmed with double costs. He said that such was the practice of the supreme court.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1840-12-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 1969
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →