Case ID: binn_1/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARCH TERM, 1809.
    THOMAS SMITH Esq., one of the Judges of this court, died on Friday the 31st of March 1809.
    AI'POINTMENT: Between December and Jlfarch terms, WALTER FRANKLIN Esq. to be Attorney General.
    Delaware Insurance Company against Gilpin.
    Tuesday, March 21st.
    In an action of debt after the first court upon the to pay costs, the plaintiff's attorney is entitled to the fee due in actions ended after the first court, and before the 5th sec. of the act of 21 March 1806. ~. that section takes away the judgment fee in an of debt prosecuted and by attorney.
    HIS was an action of debt upon a bond, brought and -~- defended by attorney in the common pleas, and then removed by hab. car. to this court, where it was diecant~nued; the defendant agreeing to pay costs. The question submitted to the court was, what costs were clue to the plaintiff's attorney.
    Candy
    read the 5th sec. of the act of 21st llfarch 1806. 7 St. Laws, 562., which directs that "the plaintiff's attorney "shall not be entitled to a judgnzent fee in any action a/debt;" and also the act of 20th April 1795, for establishing an explicit fee bill, 3 St. Laws 775. sec. 1., which allows to attorneys in the common pleas for issuing prwcipe &c. in suits ended the first court 1 doll. 67 cts., if after the first court, the further sum of I doll. 66 cts., and for every suit prosecuted to discontinuance &c. four dollars; in this court, double.~ He contended that the act of March 1806 did not extend to an action of debt conducted like this by attorneys, but to such only as was prosecuted or defended by the party himself; and that of course the plaintiff's attorney was entitled to full costs, as though that act had not been passed; or at all events that the judgment fee taken away, was merely the sum of five which added to the two sums of 12s. 6d. before given, made the four dollars; and that those two sums were stilt left to the attorney.
   Per Curiam.

It is not necessary to decide whether the provision of the act of 21st March 1806 extends to such an action of debt as this; but as no judgment has been entered in this case, it is not within that clause of the act which has been read. The plaintiff’s attorney is entitled to the fee due in actions ended after the first court and before judgment.