Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 N.C. 578

State v. . Wallin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1883

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1883-10-05

Appeae from an order made at Spring Term, 1883, of BuN■combe Superior Court, by Avery, J. The defendant and one Myers, after being tried and convicted of an affray in the inferior court of Buncombe, were- adjudged to pay the costs of the prosecution and- a fine of five dollars each. The judgment was afterwards, during- the term, suspended as to the fine upon payment of the costs of the prosecution.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2004

3 state decisions

101883189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

*580 SMITH, C. J.

¶1 We are clearly of opinion that the costs of the prosecution, devolving upon the accused in case of conviction, and for which he may be committed. to the custody of' the sheriff, are such only as were incurred in the conduct of the prosecution and making it effectual in a.verdict. Those are not included which the defendant incurred in resisting the prosecution and defending himself from the criminal charge. Such costs are personal to himself, and be, when found guilty, must provide for their payment. This is the obvious sense in which the term is used in the statute when the successful party recovers costs — that is, his costs against the other. The Code, §§739, 740, 737, 875, 1204, 1211.

¶2 For then, when adjudged against the prosecutor when the prosecution terminates in a nolle prosequi, acquittal or arrest of judgment, or against the accused when it terminates in a verdict of guilty, either party may be put in the sheriff’s custody until the. costs ■ are paid or he discharged according to law. The Code, §738; State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat., 20; State v. Cannady, 78 N. C., 539.

¶3 These charges do not constitute a debt within the meaning of the clause in the constitution for which imprisonment is forbidden (Art. I, §16), but are in the nature of a penal infliction, puni-tory in character and purpose, as is a fine imposed upon one found^guilty of crime.

¶4 The liability of a person for his own costs is a mere indebtedness which may be enforced by execution sued out in the cause, but for which he cannot be imprisoned. Collins v. Jones, 3 Hawks, 25; Officers v. Taylor, 1 Dev. 99; Clerk’s Office v. Allen, 7 Jones, 156; Clerk’s Office v. Huffsteller, 67 N. C., 449; Superior Court Office v. Lockman, 1 Dev., 146; The Clerk of Davidson County Court v. Wagoner, 4 Ired., 131; Sheppard v. Bland, 87 N. C., 163; Rev. Code, ch. 102, §24.

¶5 The three last cases directly sustain the proposition that execution may issue against a party for his own costs, and even when he has recovered them against an adversary whose insolvency prevents the collection of the money from him.

¶6*581 There is error in the ruling of the superior court, and it is reversed. Let this be certified.

¶7 Error. Reversed.

/89/nc/578 · .json · Public domain