Case ID: njl_60/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE GOAT AND SHEEPSKIN IMPORT COMPANY (LIMITED) v. FANNIE M. PASCHALL.
    The Practice act (Qen. Stat., p. 2586, pi. 319) denies costs to a plaintiff who does not recover above §200, exclusive of costs, except where title to land comes in question or “ where the parties to a suit in which the amount recovered, exclusive of costs, exceeds §100, do not reside in the same county.” Meld, that the language quoted is not limited to cases where both parties reside in this state, and will apply to a recovery by a foreign corporation.
    Motion to set aside so much of a judgment, upon a verdict for $132.08, as awards costs.
    Argued at February Term, 1897, before Justices Dixon, Ludlow and Collins.
    For the motion, Charles V. D. Joline.
    
    
      Contra, Thomas E. French.
    
   Per Curiam.

The Practice act (Gen. Stat.,p. 2586, pl. 319) denies costs to a plaintiff where he does not recover above $200, exclusive of costs, except where title to land comes in question, or “ where the parties to a suit, in which the amount recovered, exclusive of costs, exceeds $100, do hot reside in the same county.” In this case, the plaintiff is a corporation of another state, and it is argued that the exception quoted should be construed to apply only where the parties reside in different counties in this state. The language of the statute is too plain to admit of construction. The parties to the suit certainly do not reside in the same county. Costs were properly awarded under the general law. Gen. Stat., p. 2577, § 265.

The motion is denied, with costs.