Case ID: rawle_1/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pep. Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Sunbury,
    June 25, 1829.]
    GONSALUS against LIGGITT.
    IN ERROR.
    Where the plaintiff, suing before a magistrate, has a judgment given against; him, from which he appeals, and the cause being then arbitrated, an award is given in favour of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, and on the trial in court, a verdict is given in favour of the defendant: the defendant is entitled to the costs of the arbitration, and also, to the subsequent costs in court.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre county.
    
      Richard Gonsalus, the plaintiff in error,
    sued Abraham Liggitt before a justice of the peace, who gave judgment in favour of the defendant for seventeen cents, whereupon the plaintiff appealed. In the Court of Common Pleas the plaintiff entered a rule of reference, and the arbitrators awarded ninety-two cents in favour of the plaintiff; the defendant then appealed, and on a trial there was a verdict in favour of the defendant.
    The court decided, that the defendant was entitled to recover from the plaintiff the costs of the arbitration, and also the costs .which' subsequently accrued in court, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs before the justice, and if he had paid them, the amount must be deducted from the defendant’s bill;
    The only question raised in the Supreme Court, was that of the costs, .which was argued by Potter, for the plaintiff in error, and Blanchard, contra.
    
   Pep. Cueiam.

This case is not distinguishable from Flick v. Boucher, 16 Serg. & Rawle, 373, where the defendant having been the appellant at every stage, succeeded finally in abating the judgment of the justice by obtaining a nonsuit. Here he did so by a verdict and judgment on the merits; and that is the only difference. The judgment, so far as it allows the plaintiff the costs before the justice, is erroneous; but as this writ of error, is brought by the plaintiff, the defendant can have no advantage from it.

Judgment affirmed. ■