Case ID: johns_20/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spencer, Ch. J. Spencer, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George B. Evertson, Appellant, against George Booth and others, Respondents.
    
      Costs are not allowed on appeai in this ^°“¿sáz°of the decree of the Court ofChaneery: Nor, it orfthe deposit a™ peal.
    
      J. TALLMAD GE, Jun., for the appellant, moved, that ... . the remittitur in this cause, in which a decree of reversal was pronounced by this Court, at its last session, (see 19 Johns. Rep. 486.) be amended or modified, so as to give the -1 ' . . 0 appellant costs. He observed, that the remittitur had not yet been sent to the Court of Chancery, and was, therefore, in the power of the Court. He, also, moved, that the appellant be allowed interest on his deposit. He said, that prior to the act of April 12, 1813, (1 N. R. L. 343. sess. 36. ch. 96. s. 13.) no costs were allowed on the reversal of a decree ; and the cases of Le Guen v. Gouverneur, (I Johns.' Cases, 522.) and Farquharson v. Mabee, (3 Johns. Rep, 553.) were decided before that statute was passed. But, in Parkhurst v. Cortlandt, (14 Johns. Rep. 45.) decided since that time, the ri ght of the appellant to costs, on the reversal of a decree, had been established.
   Spencer, Ch. J.

In that case, the remittitur was so drawn up incorrectly; but it was, afterwards, corrected by the Court, during the same session, and the costs struck out.

Tallmadge,

In the cases of Simson v. Hart, (14 Johns. Rep. 63—77.) and Anderson v. Roberts, (18 Johns. Rep. 515—543.) afterwards decided, costs were allowed.

P. Ruggles, contra.

In the cases of Simson v. Hart, and Anderson v. Roberts, in which it is said, that the decrees were reversed, with costs, it is evident, and so this Court must be understood to mean, with costs to the appellants in the Court of Chancery. It is not said, that the appellants were to have costs in this Court, on the reversal. The statute referred to, speaks only of the reversal of a judgment on a writ of error. We have always supposed it to be a settled rule, that no costs were allowed in this Court, in a case like the present, of a reversal on appeal. The appellant cannot justly claim interest on his deposit. The money was deposited, and withheld from him, by an order of the Court.

Spencer, Ch. J.

I very much doubt whéther the decree in this cause can now be modified at all; but if it could, I recollect no instance in which we have allowed costs on the reversal of a decree of the Court of Chancery.

Platt, J., and Woodworth, J., concurred.

September 4th. Per totam Curiam. Motion denied.