Carter v. Hawley

Ohio Supreme Court

Carter v. Hawley

1 Ohio Ch. 332

DecidedJune 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Ch. 332 (Carter v. Hawley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Hawley, 1 Ohio Ch. 332 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.

By the practice act of 1824, (22 O. L. 63) officers prosecuting for penalties, are exonerated from liability for costs. The same provision is in the practice act of 1831, sect. 61; 29 O. L. 69. The judgment for costs, therefore, is erroneous, and this Court so decided in Bittle v. Play, 5 O. R. 270. The defendant had a right to a judgment to bar a future recovery, but he could not legally recover costs.

The judgment is reversed as to costs, and affirmed as to the residue. The costs in error, under our statute, providing for .such cases, must be equally divided between the parties; 29 O. L. 78.

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

Wright, J.

By the practice act of 1824, (22 O. L. 63) officers prosecuting for penalties, are exonerated from liability for costs. The same provision is in the practice act of 1831, sect. 61; 29 O. L. 69. The judgment for costs, therefore, is erroneous, and this Court so decided in Bittle v. Play, 5 O. R. 270. The defendant had a right to a judgment to bar a future recovery, but he could not legally recover costs.

The judgment is reversed as to costs, and affirmed as to the residue. The costs in error, under our statute, providing for .such cases, must be equally divided between the parties; 29 O. L. 78.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Ch. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-hawley-ohio-1833.