Case Name: Curlee v. Bond
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1803-11
Citations: 1 Brev. 297
Docket Number: 
Parties: Curlee v. Bond.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
COLUMBIA,
NOV. 1803.
Curlee v. Bond.
The plaintiff is not entitled to costs, unless the verdict is for a sum sufficient to carry costs, although the jury expressly find for the plaintiff, with costs: and, although the action sound in damages, the court will not allow judgment to be entered for the costs, as damages, if the jury have not assessed a sum certain for costs. But where such a verdict was rendered, under instruc' ions from the court that it would carry costs, a new trial was awarded, unless the defendant would agree to let judgment go for the costs.
The plaintiff in this case, which was an action for a.n assault, Obtained a verdict for fifty cems, and costs of suit, in Kershaw district, before Brevard, J.; whereupon, the defendant obtained a Tide to shew cause, why the plaintiff' should not be restrained from taxing his cosis, and entering up his judgment for the same. The court, upon hearing cause, discharged the rule; and determined, that although by the act 1747, P L. 214, it is enacted, that where the plaintiff shall not recover above £20, currency, he shall lose his costs of suit, yet if the jury find a verdict for less than that sum, and expressly find the costs for the plaintiff, Which was done in this case, although no sum certain was found as costs, the plaintiff will he entitled to the costs: for it would be unreasonable to say, that the jury may give £20, currency, which will entitle the plaintiff to his costs, and cannot give him a less sum, and the costs. And although the jury have nothing to do with the costs of suit, as such, yet the costs so given, may be considered as damages, and may be rendered certain by taxation. Verdicts may be amended from the judge’s notes: 2 Str. 1197, 2 Bur. 899, 1 Wils. 23, 1 Bay, 490. In this case, the jury liad applied to the court, to know whether they could find for the plaintiff his costs, without finding a verdict for damages to above the value of £20, currency, and were instructed by the court that they could : and where the intention of the jury is apparent, although the verdict be improperly expressed, yet if it is capable of being moulded into form, so as to answer the intent, it is the duty of the court to work it into such fottn as will make it serve the purpose. Hob. 54. 2 Str. 1036. 2 Bur. 771. Co Lilt. 227. 1 Salk. 3*28. 4 Bae. Abr. 58, 99. 5 Bac. Abr. 297. 1 Dallas, 462. I Wash. 76. Heyw. 331,
The motion iu this court was to reverse the above decision made in the district court, and to have the order made, which was originally moved for in the district court. It was argued by Blanking, for the defendant, and by Mathis, for pi lintift'.

Opinion:
The couri were of opinion, that the jury could not give the plaintiff his costs without finding a verdict which would cairy costs; and that the verdict could not be amended so as to give the costs by way of damages, as no sum in certain was expressed, as found for costs, but generally " costs of : uit " The court refused however to grant the motion, because the jury were instructed to find as they did, by the district court, under a.i impression that they might so find; but a new trial was ordered, unless the defendant would agree to let judgment go for the costs.
Note. See 1 Salk. 206 Bull. N P 10. in slander, the jury may give 10d. damages, and £10, costs, although by the slat, of 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, if the verdict ho under 40s the plaint-ff shall have no more costs than damage-, if costs be given by the jury where they are nut^r. coveralile, the court will give judgment, nullo habito respecta to the costs, although the party does not release them 1 Lill. Prac. Reg 339. 2 Saund. 257. See 1 Binn. 61. 3 Binn. 321. 2 Binn 587. 4 Dall 389. By the word " costs," full costs must have been intended, for no other costs could he legally meant; and the jury had a right to give full costs, no,withstanding the statute.