Case Name: Norman Melony vs. Michael Somers
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 50 Conn. 520
Docket Number: 
Parties: Norman Melony vs. Michael Somers.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Norman Melony vs. Michael Somers.
A plaintiff wlio has paid costs on an amendment of his declaration, and who finally recovers judgment, can recover no costs for the period during which he paid costs.
And this rule includes court and clerk fees paid by him as well as other costs.
Assumpsit; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County. The plaintiff having recovered judgment, the court (Andrews, J.) allowed in his favor certain court and clerk fees, as a part of the costs which went into the judgment, for a period during which the plaintiff had paid full costs to the defendant on an amendment of his declaration. The defendant appealed to this court on the ground of the allowance of those items of costs.
J. M. Hall, for the appellant.
E. B. Sumner, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Carpenter, J.
After this case had been pending in the Superior Court for forty-eight terms, the plaintiff amended his declaration upon the payment of full costs. He after-wards recovered judgment, and the court, against the objection of the defendant, taxed the court and clerk fees in his favor from the commencement of the suit. The defendant appealed.
The payment of costs by the plaintiff on the amendment was strictly according to the practice, a rule of court, and the statute. It is a rule which will admit of no exception, that a party shall not receive costs for the time during which he was required to pay costs in the same suit. This subject was considered, and the question now before us virtually settled, in Richardson v. Hine, 43 Conn., 203. The question in that case was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs for the time anterior to the time during which he paid costs. The court held that he could, but in laying down a rule for that case naturally and properly decided the question now before us.
The action of the court below being contrary to this rule was erroneous, and the judgment must be reversed.
In this opiniondhe other judges concurred.