Bruce & Cook v. Gale

13 N.J. Eq. 211
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedOctober 15, 1860
StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.J. Eq. 211 (Bruce & Cook v. Gale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruce & Cook v. Gale, 13 N.J. Eq. 211 (N.J. Ct. App. 1860).

Opinion

By the Chancellor.

The rule is well settled at law, that where the parties to a suit make a settlement between themselves out of court without reference to costs, each party shall pay his own costs. Anderson v. Exton, 1 Smith 177 ; Den v. Pidcock, 7 Halst. 363.

The rule is the dictate of common- sense, and is both just and reasonable. There is no reason why it should not be observed as well in equity as at law.

In Eastburn v. Kirk, 2 Johns. Ch. R. 317, where the [212]*212cause had been settled between the parties upon certain terms, one of which was that the question of costs should be submitted to the Chancellor, the court refused to decide the mere question of costs, but left each party to pay his own costs.

Neither party is entitled to costs against his adversary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Hays
1 Ind. 247 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 N.J. Eq. 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-cook-v-gale-njch-1860.