¶1The defendant is not entitled to double costs. The case of Baring v. Christie (5 East, 545.) is *279in pohit. When judgment below is for the defendant, the case is. not within the statute which gives double costs, by reason of the delay of execution. This delay cannot arise, when the plaintiffs below fail. The defendant is, however, entitled to sii~gle costs, under the 12th seCtiOfl of the same act, (Laws, vol. 1. p. 531.) which is to be construed as broadly as the act of 8 and 9 W. III. c. 11. s. 2. from which it was copied; the phraseology only being a little altered in the revision~
6 Johns. 278
Peters v. Henry
Decided August 15, 1810
New York Supreme Court · decided 1810-08-15
A QUESTION m tms cause, as to double costs, was . , ■ , submitted to the court. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, in' the Rensselaer common pleas. A judgment, after verdict, wai given for t^ie defendant, and on error to this court, that judgment was a firmed. ' ' * •
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1831
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1810-08-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →