53 F.2d 149 - Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett — 53 F.2d 149

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Ross v. Hartman (1943), Peigh v. Baltimore & O. R. (1953)

11 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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.

¶1John S. Barbour, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

¶2T ,. T . n/r-ij. cu. i. Julius I. Peyser and Milton Strasbnrger, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

¶4HITZ, Associate Justice.

¶5This is a cross-appeal taken by the defendants below in Hammett v. Minar et al., 60 App. D. C. 286, 53 F.(2d) 144, just decided.

¶6The only question presented for decision is based upon the allowance of costs to the plaintiff while dismissing her bill of complaint, which question was presented by brief and argument at the bar.

¶7-d . ,, ,, o , . .. But the allowance of costs m equity is ,, , , a matter of discretion with the court, not usually reviewa.ble on appeal, and the court below twice considered the question of these costs, and twice came to the same eonclusion regarding them; on the second occasion saying, “The adjudication of costs against the defendants in my former memorandum was not a clerical error, but intentional. I think that the Court is fully justified under the facts of this ease in so adjudging costs.”

¶8And in our disposition of the main ease on its merits, we have directed that the costs be paid by the defendants.

¶9So much of the decree appealed from in this cross-appeal awarding costs to plaintiff is affirmed, with costs.