Case ID: wis_13/html/0615-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cole J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sherible vs. Janish.
    In an action for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation, or seduction, if the plaintiff recover less than $50, he can recover no more costs than damages, but if he is entitled to wny costs, the defendant cannot recover costs. R. S., 1858, chap. 13S, secs. 38, 39.
    EKROBi to the Circuit Court for Ozaulcee County.
    The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      
      Bbdr & Williams, for plaintiff in error,
    contended tbat this was an action, in its nature, of wbicb a justice of tbe peace bad jurisdiction; tbat sec. 10 of cbap. 120, R. S., wbicb denies jurisdiction to justices, of certain actions, does so in reference to tbe nature of tbe actions, rather than to tbe ámount tbat maybe claimed; and that' subdivision 3 of section 38 of cbap. 133, applies to tbe actions only wbicb. are referred to in sec. 10, cbap. 120; tbat tbis was an action for tbe recovery of money only; and tbat tbe plaintiff, having recovered less than $50, is not entitled to recover costs. Minies vs. Wolf, 8 How. Pr. R., 238.
    
      H. Cunning, contra.
    
    Tbe statute refers to all actions of wbicb, according to law, a justice has no jurisdiction. A justice has no jurisdiction where none is expressly given. 1 Cow. Tr., 37.
    May 15
   By the Court,

Cole J.

■ Tbe judgment in tbis case was in favor of tbe defendant in error, for $13 50 damages, and for $44 27 costs of suit. Tbe action was for trespass for injuries committed on tbe wife of tbe defendant in error. Tbe amount of damages claimed was five hundred dollars. Tbe only question is as to the amount of costs tbe prevailing party was entitled to recover. On tbe one hand, it is insisted tbat be was entitled to recover full costs; while on tbe other, it is claimed tbat be was entitled to no costs, but that tbe plaintiff in error should have bad costs. We do not think either of these positions correct.

The action is most unquestionably one for an assault and battery on tbe person of Mrs. Janish. Tbis the complaint conclusively shows.

By subdivision 4, section 38, cbap. 133, R. S., it is provided tbat in an action for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation or seduction, if tbe plaintiff recover less than fifty dollars damages, be shall recover no more costs than damages. Tbis provision of law is decisive upon tbe question raised in this case. Where tbe recovery is less than fifty dollars in tbe above classes of cases, the party can recover no more costs than damages. Section 39 provides tbat costs shall be allowed of' course to tbe defendant in tbe actions mentioned in tbe previous section, unless tbe plaintiff be entitled to costs therein. In tbe present case, however, tbe plaintiff was entitled to costs to tbe amount of bis damages. It is obvious then, that the defendant below cannot claim costs under this section, since it only applies to cases where tbe plaintiff is not entitled to costs. See Dunning vs. Falkner, 10 Wis., 394; 1 Burrill’s Practice, 272.

Tbe judgment in this case must be modified so as to give tbe plaintiff below only $13 50 costs, that being tbe amount of damages recovered.