Case ID: sc-eq_27/html/0359-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dunkin', Ch.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. P. and L. T. Brown vs. Isaac A. Wood. Same vs. William Ashley.
    
    A deoree for the specific delivery of slaves, and an account for their hire, without any f order as to the costs, entitles the plaintiff to costs under tho 33 Rule of Court.
    
      Before Dargan, Ch., at Barnwell, February, 1854.
    These were bills for the specific delivery of slaves. By the decree of Wardlaw, Ch., at February Sittings, 1853, the defendants were ordered to deliver up the slaves, and account for their hire ; and on appeal, the decree was affirmed. (Vide ante p. 155.) The Commissioner reported the sums due„by the defendants, respectively, for hire, and no exception was taken to the report. His Honor confirmed the report, and ordered each party to pay his own costs. From this order, the plaintiffs appealed on the ground, that the question as to costs was settled, in effect, by the circuit decree of Wardlaw, Ch., and the affirmation of the same by the Court of Appeals.
    
      Owens, for appellants.
    
      Aldrich, Bellinger, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered .by

Dunkin', Ch.

Since Muse vs. Peay, Dud. Eq. 236, it has been well settled that, when no direction is given with respect to costs, they shall follow the event of the suit. This is the construction given to the 33 rule of Court. 1 Des. Rep. 62. See Higginbottam vs. Peyton, 4 Rich. Eq. 314.

The plaintiffs filed their bill for the specific delivery of slaves, and their right was contested bjr the defendants. The bill was sustained by the Circuit Court, the right of the plaintiffs affirmed, and the defendants decreed to deliver up the slaves and account for their hire, without any order as to the costs. On appeal from this decree, the judgment was affirmed. This entitled the plaintiffs to costs, under the rule stated. The account for hire was merely incidental. If a bill had been filed to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a bond, and the validity of either had been contested, and a decree passed for the plaintiff, this would entitle him to costs, although a reference to the Commissioner might have been directed to calculate the interest on the bond.

It is ordered and decreed, that so much of the decretal order as directs each party to pay their own costs, be set aside; and that the plaintiffs have leave to enforce their decree for the amount thereof, together with their costs.

Johnston, Dargan and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.

Decretal order set aside.