Clark v. Scofield
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a complaint for costs. It was admitted that Scofield commenced a suit against Clark in February, 1842, and that the writ was made returnable at the May Term of the county court, 1842; that the writ was served on Clark by arresting his body; that Clark appeared in court to answer to the suit; that, subsequent to the service of the writ, Clark filed his petition in bankruptcy, and was declared a bankrupt previous to the term at which the writ was made returnable; that…
Read the full summary
This was a complaint for costs. It was admitted that Scofield commenced a suit against Clark in February, 1842, and that the writ was made returnable at the May Term of the county court, 1842; that the writ was served on Clark by arresting his body; that Clark appeared in court to answer to the suit; that, subsequent to the service of the writ, Clark filed his petition in bankruptcy, and was declared a bankrupt previous to the term at which the writ was made returnable; that Clark never had any notice that the suit was discontinued; and that the suit was not entered in court. The court, upon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The provision for giving costs to the defendant in a suit, when the plaintiff shall discontinue his action, or become non-suit therein, was substantially the same in the old statute that it now is. And it has never been construed as applying imperatively to every case, where the plaintiff has chosen not to enter his suit in court. Whenever it has been made to appear that the defendant had received timely and proper notice that the suit would not be entered, he has been denied costs upon such an application as the present. And if, between the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fullam v. IvesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865