Esmond v. Chew
ESMOND v. CHEW
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cope (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Cope
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
This is an action for damages, and for an injunction. The plaintiffs recovered less than two hundred dollars, and the question is whether they are entitled to costs. This, we think, is one of the cases in which the allowance of costs is in the discretion of the Court. (Practice Act, sec. 495, 498.) They were refused by the Court below, and we cannot interfere.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Couldthirst v. Kelley No. 3613 · 1873-10-16