Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 S.C.L. 297

Curlee v. Bond

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 15, 1803

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1803-11-15

The plaintiff in this case, which was an action for a.n assault, Obtained a verdict for fifty cems, and costs of suit, in Kershaw district, before Brevard, J.; whereupon, the defendant obtained a Tide to shew cause, why the plaintiff' should not be restrained from taxing his cosis, and entering up his judgment for the same.

Relies on Rowley v. Brown · Stuart v. Harkins

Decided 1803-11-15

¶1The couri were of opinion, that the jury could not give the plaintiff his costs without finding a verdict which would cairy costs; and that the verdict could not be amended so as to give the costs by way of damages, as no sum in certain was expressed, as found for costs, but generally “ costs of : uit ” The court refused however to grant the motion, because the jury were instructed to find as they did, by the district court, under a.i impression that they might so find; but a new trial was ordered, unless the defendant would agree to let judgment go for the costs.

¶2Note. See 1 Salk. 206 Bull. N P 10. in slander, the jury may give 10d. damages, and £10, costs, although by the slat, of 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, if the verdict ho under 40s the plaint-ff shall have no more costs than damage-, if costs be given by the jury where they are nut^r. coveralile, the court will give judgment, nullo habito respecta to the costs, although the party does not release them 1 Lill. Prac. Reg 339. 2 Saund. 257. See 1 Binn. 61. 3 Binn. 321. 2 Binn 587. 4 Dall 389. By the word “ costs,” full costs must have been intended, for no other costs could he legally meant; and the jury had a right to give full costs, no,withstanding the statute.

/3/scl/297 · .json · Public domain