De Benneville v. De Benneville
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN this cause, which was an action of trespass for mesne pro. fits, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 200 dolls, and the prothonotary taxed the costs of witnesses at 162 dolls. From this bill the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Smith J.
I examined this question a long time since, and this was the result; a witness subpoenaed though not examined has a right to payment; so if examined though not subpoenaed. A party has a right to call as many witnesses as he thinks are necessary to make out his case. Where there is oppression it must be proved, and the court will lay their hands upon it; but it is not to be presumed.
Shippen C. J.
There must be proof of oppression, which does not seem to be the case here.
2Per curiam
The bill of costs, as it has been taxed by the prothonotary, is confirmed.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Fid. Land Value Assur. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Willink v. ReceleNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Gunnison v. GunnisonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Commercial Bank v. RossDelaware Court of Common Pleas · 1819
- Commonwealth v. KuglerNorthampton County Court of Oyer and Terminer · 1944