Case ID: johns_6/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peters and Gedney against Henry.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1810.
    where the plaintiff iu a suit in a courL of whiclfjudgmmt terS verdict’, for brought^a!Cwrit of error to this court, and the judgment in the affirmed ;°it was fendant'was°uot entitled to double costs, under the l4t!i sect, of the act, sess. 24. o. 170. which is otdy for delaying execution s but he is entitled to single coste under the 12lh-section of the act. 1
    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. ' ' *" •
   Per Curiam.

The defendant is not entitled to double costs. The case of Baring v. Christie (5 East, 545.) is in 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~