Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 3.djvu/59

This page has been validated.

THIRTEENTH CONGRESS.Sess. I. Ch. 14.1813.

Statute Ⅰ.

July 22, 1813.

Chap. XIV.—An Act concerning suits and costs in courts of the United States.^[1]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be severalWhen several actions are brought against persons who might be legally actions or processes against persons who might legally be joined in one action or process, touching any demand or matter in dispute before a court of the United States or the territories thereof,

↑

Decisions in the Courts of the United States, on the law of costs.

1. The cost of printing a statement of the case for the Supreme Court, was refused to be allowed as part of the plaintiff’s costs. Jennings et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. The Brig Perseverance, 3 Dall. 336; 1 Cond. Rep. 154.
2. On a writ of error to the High Court of Appeals of Maryland, the judgment of that court was reversed, and the judgment of the general court of Maryland was affirmed. The mandate of the Supreme Court was directed to the general court, and the costs of the Supreme Court and of the courts of Maryland were allowed to the plaintiff in error. Clarke, Plaintiff in Error v. Harwood, 3 Dall. 342; 1 Cond. Rep. 157.
3. Costs are not to be awarded against the United States. The United States v. Hooe et al. 3 Cranch, 73; 1 Cond. Rep. 458.
4. A judgment for costs, generally, includes all the costs belonging to the suit, whether prior or subsequent to the rendition of the judgment. If new costs accrue, the judgment opens to receive them. Peyton v. Brooke, 3 Cranch, 92; 1 Cond. Rep. 464.
5. Costs were allowed upon the dismission of a writ of error for want of jurisdiction; the original defendant being also defendant in error. Winchester v. Jackson et al. 3 Cranch, 514; l Cond. Rep. 612.
6. Where there appeared some ground for the prosecution, costs were refused. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132.
7. Where a writ of error is dismissed in the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction, costs are not allowed. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363; 4 Cond. Rep. 155.
8. Each party is liable to the clerk of the Supreme Court for the fees due to him from each party, respectively. Caldwell v. Jackson, 7 Cranch, 276; 2 Cond. Rep. 490.
9. A copy of the record is not a part of the taxable costs of suit, to be recovered by one party against the other; but the party who requests the copy, must pay the clerk for it. Ibid.
10. It is undoubtedly a general rule, that no court can give a direct judgment against the United States for costs, in a suit to which they are a party, either on behalf of any suitor, or any officer of the government. But it by no means follows, from this, that they are not liable for their own costs. No direct suit can be maintained against the United States. But when an action is brought by the United States, to recover money in the hands of a party, who has a legal claim against them for costs, it would be a very rigid principle, to deny to him the right of setting up such claim in a court of justice, and turn him round to an application to Congress. If the right of the party is fixed by the existing law, there can be no necessity for an application to Congress, except for the purpose of remedy. And no such necessity can exist, when this right can properly be set up by way of defence to a suit by the United States. U. S. v. Ringgold et al. 8 Peters, 150.
11. The United States do not pay costs in any case. The U. S. v. Barker, 2 Wheat. 395; 4 Cond. Rep. 181.
12. No judgment or decree can be rendered directly against the United States for costs and expenses. The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546; 6 Cond. Rep. 629.
14. The fees and compensation to the marshal, where the government is a party to the suit, and his fees or compensation are chargeable to the United States, are to be paid out of the treasury, upon a certificate of the amount, to be made by the court, or one of the judges. Ibid.
15. In cases of reversal, costs do not go of course; but in case of affirmance they do. When a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; 2 Cond. Rep. 19.
16. The court below, upon a mandamus, on reversal of its judgment, may award execution for the costs of the appellant in that court. Riddle et al. v. Mandeville et al. 6 Cranch, 86; 2 Cond. Rep. 307.
17. Where the court ordered the costs to be paid of a former ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in the names of other persons, but for their use, before the plaintiff could prosecute a second suit in his own name for the same land; this was not a judicial decision that the right of the plaintiffs in the first suit was the same with that of the plaintiffs in the second suit. It was perfectly consistent with the justice of the case, that when the plaintiffs sued the same defendant in their own name for the same land, that they should reimburse him for the past costs to which they had subjected him, before they should be permitted to proceed further. Rules of this kind are granted by the court to meet the justice and exigencies of cases as they occur; not depending solely on the interest which those who are subjected to such rules may have in the subject matter of suits which they bring and prosecute in the names of others; but on a variety of circumstances, which, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may furnish a proper ground for their interference. Henderson and Wife v. Griffin, 5 Peters, 151.
18. Where several claims had been filed by the district attorney, and, before any further proceedings in the cause, Congress remitted the forfeiture, on the payment of duties, costs, and charges: Held, that the district attorney of Massachusetts was entitled to seventeen dollars on each claim. The Francis, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 453.
19. In taxing the costs in prize causes, where there are several claims, some of which are disposed of by a final decree of condemnation, while others are suspended by appeal, the practice is to tax the costs and expenses which have accrued, specially, upon each claim so disposed of, as a separate charge against the same, and to add thereto an average proportion of the general costs and expenses which have accrued in reference to all the claims in the cause. The Hiram and the Hero, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 60.
20. In prize causes, the allowance or denial of costs rests in the discretion of the court; and where

[1] 

Decisions in the Courts of the United States, on the law of costs.

1. The cost of printing a statement of the case for the Supreme Court, was refused to be allowed as part of the plaintiff’s costs. Jennings et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. The Brig Perseverance, 3 Dall. 336; 1 Cond. Rep. 154.
2. On a writ of error to the High Court of Appeals of Maryland, the judgment of that court was reversed, and the judgment of the general court of Maryland was affirmed. The mandate of the Supreme Court was directed to the general court, and the costs of the Supreme Court and of the courts of Maryland were allowed to the plaintiff in error. Clarke, Plaintiff in Error v. Harwood, 3 Dall. 342; 1 Cond. Rep. 157.
3. Costs are not to be awarded against the United States. The United States v. Hooe et al. 3 Cranch, 73; 1 Cond. Rep. 458.
4. A judgment for costs, generally, includes all the costs belonging to the suit, whether prior or subsequent to the rendition of the judgment. If new costs accrue, the judgment opens to receive them. Peyton v. Brooke, 3 Cranch, 92; 1 Cond. Rep. 464.
5. Costs were allowed upon the dismission of a writ of error for want of jurisdiction; the original defendant being also defendant in error. Winchester v. Jackson et al. 3 Cranch, 514; l Cond. Rep. 612.
6. Where there appeared some ground for the prosecution, costs were refused. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132.
7. Where a writ of error is dismissed in the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction, costs are not allowed. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363; 4 Cond. Rep. 155.
8. Each party is liable to the clerk of the Supreme Court for the fees due to him from each party, respectively. Caldwell v. Jackson, 7 Cranch, 276; 2 Cond. Rep. 490.
9. A copy of the record is not a part of the taxable costs of suit, to be recovered by one party against the other; but the party who requests the copy, must pay the clerk for it. Ibid.
10. It is undoubtedly a general rule, that no court can give a direct judgment against the United States for costs, in a suit to which they are a party, either on behalf of any suitor, or any officer of the government. But it by no means follows, from this, that they are not liable for their own costs. No direct suit can be maintained against the United States. But when an action is brought by the United States, to recover money in the hands of a party, who has a legal claim against them for costs, it would be a very rigid principle, to deny to him the right of setting up such claim in a court of justice, and turn him round to an application to Congress. If the right of the party is fixed by the existing law, there can be no necessity for an application to Congress, except for the purpose of remedy. And no such necessity can exist, when this right can properly be set up by way of defence to a suit by the United States. U. S. v. Ringgold et al. 8 Peters, 150.
11. The United States do not pay costs in any case. The U. S. v. Barker, 2 Wheat. 395; 4 Cond. Rep. 181.
12. No judgment or decree can be rendered directly against the United States for costs and expenses. The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546; 6 Cond. Rep. 629.
14. The fees and compensation to the marshal, where the government is a party to the suit, and his fees or compensation are chargeable to the United States, are to be paid out of the treasury, upon a certificate of the amount, to be made by the court, or one of the judges. Ibid.
15. In cases of reversal, costs do not go of course; but in case of affirmance they do. When a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; 2 Cond. Rep. 19.
16. The court below, upon a mandamus, on reversal of its judgment, may award execution for the costs of the appellant in that court. Riddle et al. v. Mandeville et al. 6 Cranch, 86; 2 Cond. Rep. 307.
17. Where the court ordered the costs to be paid of a former ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in the names of other persons, but for their use, before the plaintiff could prosecute a second suit in his own name for the same land; this was not a judicial decision that the right of the plaintiffs in the first suit was the same with that of the plaintiffs in the second suit. It was perfectly consistent with the justice of the case, that when the plaintiffs sued the same defendant in their own name for the same land, that they should reimburse him for the past costs to which they had subjected him, before they should be permitted to proceed further. Rules of this kind are granted by the court to meet the justice and exigencies of cases as they occur; not depending solely on the interest which those who are subjected to such rules may have in the subject matter of suits which they bring and prosecute in the names of others; but on a variety of circumstances, which, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may furnish a proper ground for their interference. Henderson and Wife v. Griffin, 5 Peters, 151.
18. Where several claims had been filed by the district attorney, and, before any further proceedings in the cause, Congress remitted the forfeiture, on the payment of duties, costs, and charges: Held, that the district attorney of Massachusetts was entitled to seventeen dollars on each claim. The Francis, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 453.
19. In taxing the costs in prize causes, where there are several claims, some of which are disposed of by a final decree of condemnation, while others are suspended by appeal, the practice is to tax the costs and expenses which have accrued, specially, upon each claim so disposed of, as a separate charge against the same, and to add thereto an average proportion of the general costs and expenses which have accrued in reference to all the claims in the cause. The Hiram and the Hero, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 60.
20. In prize causes, the allowance or denial of costs rests in the discretion of the court; and where

[1]