Taylor v. Keeler
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case, for damage by flooding the plaintiff’s mill wheel. The defendant claimed the right, as owner of a mill below, to set the water back as he had done. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for one cent damages. The court refused to tax costs for either party, under a statute passed after the action was brought, giving the judge a discretionary power in the matter. The plaintiff excepted, and brought the case before this court by motion in error..
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
The jury in this case returned a verdict for one cent damages, evidently intending that they should be merely nominal. The judge, supposing that this brought it within the provisions of the statute of 1859, chap. 22, refused to tax costs in favor of either party. The plaintiff, who is also plaintiff in error, insists that this decision was erroneous. The statute provides “ that in all cases in which the plaintiff in any action at law shall recover only nominal damages, the court may at its discretion allow costs to the plaintiff or to the defendant or to neither party.” It would be difficult…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mason v. HaileSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Thames Manufacturing Co. v. LathropSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
- Supervisors of Onondaga v. BriggsNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Hine v. BeldenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- Warden of Bridgeport v. HubbellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Boyd v. SchneiderCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1904
- Lew v. BraySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank of Albany: Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
- Skinner v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- Cushman v. HaleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.