Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-07-22

april AeFlns 1888.
Boothe " Co-,,
CoRau commenced his snit bsgsrss f-.,s,, !, ~,
Peace. This Warraut Vas On isbt -. Y. ~
under tEo hundred dollars The Jusfir. .,..-;7
ment in favor Of the defendant Boothe -. 49,
Of S64 and costs. The Paintif removed ~ .,-,-
I in1o the Circuit Court By appeal where ihs iurv
iound by t5slr verdict that the defendants Was in
ds6ied 70 the plainii6 SleS sS4 and the plsintia
indebted to the defendant S262 79I. Upon the ssd-
ing Of The jury, the Court rendered gment 5r he
eeIenoant Tor the excess Of MS demand anaounfinr
I 70 the sun Of S63 81 and fer alf costs b. him *
Penaea n establishing his said demsne-, an thai
tae plaintiff recover Ct ghe dsfsndant al casts bv
hlu expended IN proving bis demand From thfs
Judgment, the defendant has appeale1 ia sfror 70
J this Court. q
The only error assigned, is the taxafionsf per-
uOn Of the costs against the defendant he hsvfDs
recovered 3 judgment against the pIaiutiF for !
oalaaee Of debt found Il his favor From q bill Of
exceptions nsds part Of the record 60 appears that
lAe plainln demand vas FOR Fenjs, goods sold sad
delIssFed, and for Eork and labor done. bs cross
ae@snas we're mutually dlsp0ted, and each party
was put upon his proof
Toe plaintiff had cause Of aetiou against tbs
defendant, and ths defendant hsd q sspsrsts and
distinct cause Of action for larger sn0a sr.insi
the PlaintiH- Fhis suit vas in sbe nature of and
Was in effect, cFoss-aotions fsunded upon tao inde-
peadentY separate and disinot causes of acfion in
which each party succeeded in establishing bis de-
mEndi and if the suits had been separately brought
aud tried, there be no pretenoe that eaeb party
would not have been entitled, under the provisions
o. the Act Of 1924, ca l. sec. "a to hare recovered
bis entire eosIs by him expended in establishing bis
demand.
That section provides, that sin all actions. The
party in whose favor judgment shall be given OF in
case ef q non-snit' Sc, The defendant shsR be en-
titled to fail costs
In this cross aetion, the plaintiff has succeeded
in establishing his demand, snd il tried separately
would have been entitled TO his sf1If ea5is.n and
can IL be maintained, thst because the defendant
thought proper in this suit to 5ring forward and
establish his demand against the plaintiff, which
vas a separate and distiot cause OF action, be can
thereby defeat the right Of the plaintiff to recover
the full costs expended in establishing bis demand
We think not. The plaintiff must reeoEer from
the defendant The costs which necessarily accrued
in establishing his Of sotiou against Tie de-
feudeni; and the defendant is entitled his costs
which accrued IA maintaining his demand againsI
the plaintiff. But il ia ssid that By the express
provision Of the Act Of l194, ''the party in whose
favor judgment shall be given, shall be entitled 10
full costs" This statute has been several times con-
sirued By this Court In the case Of Sloan vs..
Parks ct al e Swan, r. 62l it said that when there
are joint defendants, Of whom Is acquitted and
tie others are not, the defendant who is acquitted
nay recover Of che plaintiff, such costs 5aiy, IS
accrued scpGTatsly and properly on account Of bic
being made defendant In the suit; aud the plaintiff
is entitled 10 resoysr Of the other defendants the
costs o. the suit recovered in the joint defence OF
otherEiss except such as may be separedthersfrom,
as having exclusive references to the defendant who
is discharged. different rule prevails, where the
parties sever IN their defeness.
In this case, judgment was rendered in favor Of
the plaintiff yet be did not recover the full costs Of
the entire suit. And sgain, in the case Of Allison
Thompson, came book, 202, It is laid down. thai
when plaintiff joins ssrsTai causes action By means
Of serersl Counts, but fails to others, he can
cover only such costs incident 10 thai Count Of
ths celebration upon trhich he succeeds While ne de-
ERdaaf IS entitled 20 rer0reT such costs haze accrued
"a consequences Of tis Counts upon uhjeh tls pi1iB
has faIisd Here sgsin Judgment is rendered IN
favor Of The plaintiff but be RECEIVERS costs only
that cause Of action set out in his declaration upon
which hc succeeds. and judgment vas rendered in
favor Of the defendant for all the costs incident 70
the trial Of the other separate causes OF asan sst
out in his declaration upon which be failed He
covers full costs the cause Of action upon which be
costs succeeds, and be ubjsced the payment Of
fGll incident TO those causes Of action though tried
ia the same suit, upon which he fails.
we think these principles apply % the case before
US. CoWan had cause Of ahction against BoOths
upon which he succeeds. Then Why not tax Boothe
with the costs properly incident 10 that cause Of
aetion7 Il is true Boothf at the same time had
cause Of action against C0Wsn for larger amoant
which was tried in the same suit in which he sue
eeeded and Of course be is entitled TO the fun costs
incident to that cause Of aeten. We think the costs
were properly taxed in the Ciruit Court and affirm
the judgment HARRIS.
Test; II. D. WEIGH Clerk.