Legal Opinion
Riggs v. Tyson
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided May 15, 1790Published
Certiorari to Justice Peck. It appeared by the return of the justice, that this action was, in part, to recover the costs of a suit brought by Tyson against Riggs, the testator, in his lifetime, which had abated by the death of Riggs.
1Per curiam
On an abatement no costs are recoverable at law, (a) and this being an entire judgment, cannot be affirmed in part and reversed in part, (b) but must be reversed altogether.
Cited in Krumerick v. Krumerick, 2 Gr. 42.
On the first point, see Hullock’s Law of Costs 131; Sayer’s Law of Costs 300, 301, 302; Allen v. Maxey, Barnes 120; Poekling v. Peck, 1 Str. 638.
On the second point, see Jackson v. Commonwealth, 2 Bin. 79; 2 Bac. Abr. 500.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tibbs v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853