Case Name: Andrew Stephens, vs. Robert Ligon
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-11
Citations: 1 Harp. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: Andrew Stephens, vs. Robert Ligon.
Judges: ColcocJc, JVott, Huger, and Johnson, Justices, concur-currcd.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Andrew Stephens, vs. Robert Ligon.
When a statute gives double costs, the rule of taxation is to allow3 first, common costs arid then add one half of that amount.
In this case, plaintiff Stephens, had brought an action of ■trespass and false imprisonment against the defendant, in his capacity of a justice of the peace. Op. the trial of the causey the verdict was for the defendant; who entered up his judgment for double costs, and issued execution thereon, la taxing the costs, the clerk adhercd.to the English rule, and for double costs^. allowed only fifty per cent to be added to the usual costs. A motion was made before the circuit court, to open the judgment, and alter the taxation of costs, by adding one hundred, instead of fifty per cent upon the usual costs; which motion was granted. The plaintiff now moved to have the decision of the judge reversed, on the following ground: that the taxation of costs, as made by the clerk in the first place, was the correct mode of taxing double costs, and that the alteration ordered to be made, by adding one hundred instead oí fifty per cent to the ordinary costs, was contrary to law.
Goldthwaite, for motion.
,íi. W. Thompson, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Richardson.
"Where a statute gives double costs," says Bacon, (2 vol. Tit. costs, C.) they are calculated thus: — 1st, The common costs, and then half the common costs. 2nd, If treble costs. 1st, The common costs, then half of these, and then half of the latter." Jacobs in the Law Dictionary, Tit. costs, and Tidd's practice, 962 and 3, lay down the same rule; which is supported by the original authorities. See 2nd Stra. 1048. Smith, vs. Dunce. And as no inverate practice has existed in this state to contravene the rule laid down, it is considered as the just and legal principle, and our acts must have been passed with reference to a principle so fully established. The motion is therefore granted.'.
ColcocJc, JVott, Huger, and Johnson, Justices, concur-currcd.