Case ID: scl_6/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Brevard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia, November Term, 1812,
    The Cambridge Association vs. Julius Nichols.
    The motion m this case was submitted without t • , i • • oi - - garment. It is to reverse the decision or the court of Common Pleas for Abbeville District, on á question of costs. The action’ was assumpsit; and the plaintiff, by several counts in the declaration, stated * .... „ several distinct causes of action, one of which was a promise to pay fifty-five dollars 5 and was the only count supported by evidence. It was insisted for the defendant, that as the verdict was on the only count supported by evidence, and as the cause of action stated in that court, was within the summary jurjs¿jc^on 0f the Court, the form of the remedy was mistaken; or that the plaintiff had wilfully pursued an improper remedy in order to accumulate costs. On this ground the motion was made in the district court, to order the taxation of summary process, costs only; which motion was overruled.
    
      t1)e demand of the piain-alVao/™" ^nts'are added deceitfully to swell the pi^ff e shall have no more than summary process costs/So, if the demand he reduced,by payments made before the action brought, to less than 201. But if the plaintiff do bona fide claim a sum beyond 20/. though he recover less than 30/. he shall have full costs.
   Brevard, J.

From the report of the Judge, who presided in the district court, it has appeared that the plain tiff'’s claim amounted to five hundred dollars; and that their claiming on the other counts, which were not supported by evidence, did not appear to be deceitful, or merely pretended, in order to accumulate costs. If this had been the case, or if the real demand of the plaintiffs had been reduced within the summary jurisdiction of the court, by payments made before suit brought; which in justice he was bound to admit, and which the defendant could not object to, his allowing on the- ground that the payment was made on some other account, I should be of opinion that the decision was incorrect, and that summary process costs, only, ought to have been charged. But as the case stands, my opinion is. that the decision of the district court was right, and that the motion should be discharged.

Colcock, Bay, Grimke, and Nott concurred..