Brailey v. Miller
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS action was brought to recover a debt exceeding £10, but, upon being referred, the debt was reduced by a set off, and the report of the referees was for no more than £8. As the plaintiff had not previously filed an affidavit of his belief, that the sum due exceeded £ 10, (agreeably to the provision of the 13th section of the act of the 1st March, 1745.) Bankson, contended, that he was entitled to recover costs. 1 Vol. Dall.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover a debt exceeding £10, but, upon being referred, the debt was reduced by a set off, and the report of the referees was for no more than £8. As the plaintiff had not previously filed an affidavit of his belief, that the sum due exceeded £ 10, (agreeably to the provision of the 13th section of the act of the 1st March, 1745.) Bankson, contended, that he was entitled to recover costs. 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 308. 2 Vol. p. 364. Howel, for the plaintiff, said, that if this action could not have been brought before a Justice of the Peace, his client was of course,…
1Opinion of the Court
On the 11 th of September, the President delivered the opinion of the Court.
Shippen, President:
The question to be decided is, which of the parties shall pay the costs, the plaintiff having recovered less than ten pounds. The £5 act provides, that where the person suing shall obtain a verdict or judgment for debt and damages, which, without costs of suit, shall not amount to more than £5. (not having filed an oath or affirmation, before the issuing of the writ, that he truly believed the debt due, or damage sustained, exceeded that sum) he shall not recover any costs. The act extending the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grant ex rel. Lyon v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Sadler v. SlobaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
- Ayala v. SalazarDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- Cooper v. Coats, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1788