Case Name: The Weatherby. Spreckels v. The Weatherby
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-02-02
Citations: 49 F. 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Weatherby. Spreckels v. The Weatherby.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 463–463

Head Matter:
The Weatherby. Spreckels v. The Weatherby.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
February 2, 1892.)
Abmikalty — Costs.
Costs will not be placed on libelant, in whose favor a final decree has been made, on account of the decree not exceeding the amount which was admitted by respondent’s answer, although all questions in controversy were decided in respondent’s favor, and the expenses of the suit were greatly increased by the largo sum orig • inaliy claimed by libelant.
In Admiralty. Libel by Claus Sprockets against the steamer Weatherby. Motion by respondent to place the costs on libelant. The libel as filed claimed §97,000, proceeds of sale of damaged cargo, damaged without fault of the ship. Respondent in answer admitted §52,000 due, subject to deduction for general average. For tills amount admitted, the final decree was made, which was opened and further reduced on account of difference in rate of exchange. See 48 Fed. Rep. 784. The expenses of suit had been greatly increased by requiring a stipulation for §110,000, which was reduced under a survey and appraisement of the steamer’to §75,000.
Motion denied.
Morton F. Henry, for libelant.
Curtis Tilton, for respondent.
Reported by Mark Wilks Collet, Esq., oí the Philadelphia bar.

Opinion:
Butler, District Judge.
While the court has control over the subject of costs, and may impose them on either party, as in equity, they generally follow the event of the suit — always indeed except where something unusual appears, which renders it just to impose them on the other side. I do not find anything in this ease which would justify a departure from the general rule. The suggestion that a part of them, at least, should be borne by the libelant was made at an earlier stage in the proceedings, and the subject was reserved for consideration until this time. I have considered it fully in the light of the facts invoked by the respondent's counsel, but cannot adopt his views respecting it.