From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shay v. Tuolumne Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1856
6 Cal. 286 (Cal. 1856)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne.

         COUNSEL

          Barber, for Appellant.

          E. F. Hunter, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray. Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         This was an action in the Court below for damages for flooding a mining claim with water. The jury found a verdict of fifty dollars and costs for the plaintiff. All the errors are waived by the appellants, except as to the judgment for costs.

         By the 498th section of the Practice Act, it is provided that no costs shall be allowed in an action for money or damages, when the plaintiff recovers less than $ 200. The recovery spoken of means the damages assessed by the jury eo nomine, exclusive of the costs which they may arbitrarily find. (Van Horne v. Petrie, 2 Caine, 213, and Supervisors of Onondaga v. Briggs , 3 Denio, 173.) Costs are an incident to the judgment, to be taxed by the clerk or Court, and cannot be given by the jury by way of damages.

         So much of the judgment of the Court below as allows costs to the plaintiffs, is reversed, and the Court is directed to modify it in conformity with this opinion.


Summaries of

Shay v. Tuolumne Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1856
6 Cal. 286 (Cal. 1856)
Case details for

Shay v. Tuolumne Water Co.

Case Details

Full title:SHAY v. TUOLUMNE WATER CO.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1856

Citations

6 Cal. 286 (Cal. 1856)

Citing Cases

Porter & Allen v. Liscom

This Court has decided that a jury has nothing to do with the costs. (6 Cal. 286.)…

McMillan v. Vischer

Originally, all costs were allowed by way of penalty, as well as damages. (Shay v. Tuolumne Water Co. 6…