Belknap v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Motion nor Costs. After verdict for plaintiff, judg’ment was arrested on the ground that the declaration contained a count in assumpsit and a count in tort.
Read the full summary
Motion nor Costs. After verdict for plaintiff, judg’ment was arrested on the ground that the declaration contained a count in assumpsit and a count in tort. Defendant moved for costs, and claimed that defendant was the prevailing party- under Gen. St., ch. 214, sec. 1. The court ruled that defendant was not a prevailing party, and was not entitled to costs under that provision of the statute, and overruled defendant’s motion, and defendant excepted, and filed this bill of exceptions, which was allowed and signed. No question of discretion was considered.
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
At common law no costs were allowed to either party ; State v. Kinne, 41 N. H. 238; but laws were passed from time to time giving costs in certain cases. Bac. Abridg., Costs.
So in this State various statutes have been passed allowing costs in particular cases, and costs have been allowed in those cases accordingly. But where there was no special provision allowing costs, none were allowed. In State v. Leavitt, 3 N. H. 44, it was held that no costs should be allowed in a writ of certiorari, and in Eames v. Car-*389lisle, 3 N. H. 130, that defendant was not entitled to costs, when the writ was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hart v. FitzgeraldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Pangburn v. RamsayNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Haines v. CorlissMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808