Grim v. Walbert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 259, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, James Grim, from decree of C. P. Lebigb Co., Nov. T., 1890, No. 1, in equity, imposing costs upon plaintiff in bill in equity against Henry Walbert et al. Bill to correct mistake in a deed. The case was referred to Fred. M. Runk, Esq., as master, who recommended a decree in favor of plaintiff, with the costs on defendants. Exceptions were filed by defendants, but none as to the imposition of costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 259, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, James Grim, from decree of C. P. Lebigb Co., Nov. T., 1890, No. 1, in equity, imposing costs upon plaintiff in bill in equity against Henry Walbert et al. Bill to correct mistake in a deed. The case was referred to Fred. M. Runk, Esq., as master, who recommended a decree in favor of plaintiff, with the costs on defendants. Exceptions were filed by defendants, but none as to the imposition of costs. The opinion of the court below was as follows, by Albright, P. J.: “ When Jacob H. Walbert died, his land, now owned by plaintiff, had resting upon it…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The single question in this case is whether the plaintiff or the defendants shall pay the costs of the proceedings below. The costs in equity are always within the discretion of a chancellor, and it is only where there is a clear abuse of this discretion that we would interfere. We see no such abuse in this case, and for this reason
The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Guckenheimer & Bros. v. KannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Sherry v. Cedarbrook Country Club, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1962