Case ID: nh_6/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas F. Ames versus Charles W. Cady.
    la covenant broken, the jury assessed the damages at the Bum of ene dollar. The court refused to limit the costs, because it did not appear, clearly, that the plaintiff had no realj§nable expectation of recovering thirteen dollars and thirty three cents.
    Covenant Bkoken. The plaintiff alleged, that the defendant, qn the 21th June, 1831, by deed, covenanted with the plaintiff to labor as a journeyman saddle and harness maker, in the plaintiff’s business, for the term of one year from that date. The breach of the covenant alleged, was, that the defendant left the service of the plaintiff on the 9th March, 1832,
    The defendant pleaded, that he left the service of the plaintiff', with the plaintiffs license ; and issue was joined upon the license.
    The cause was tried here at this term ; and, a verdict having been returned, in favor of the plaintiff, with $1 damages—
    
      ff'ilson and Edwards, for the defendant,
    moved the court to limit the costs.
    
      Joel Parker, for the plaintiff.
   By the court.

The statute of January 2, 1829, section 5, provides, that in certain actions, of which covenant broken is one, when the damages assessed, by the jury do not amount to thirteen dollars and thirty three cents, if it shall appear that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of recovering more than that sum, the court may limit the plaintiff in his costs. But we never limit the costs, under this clause in the statute, unless it clearly appears, that the plaintiff liad no ground to suppose that he should recover a greater sum than thirteen dollars and thirty three cents. In this case it does not so appear. For although the jury have assessed the damages at the sum of one dollar we think that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff might have had a reasonable expectation of recovering a much larger sum.

The motion ü overruled.