Dahl v. Town of Danbury

Connecticut Superior Court

Dahl v. Town of Danbury

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 323, 8 Conn. Supp. 323, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 120

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1940

DocketFile 57528

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 323 (Dahl v. Town of Danbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dahl v. Town of Danbury, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 323, 8 Conn. Supp. 323, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 120 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The action is to recover of the defendants damages for alleged conduct upon their part which conduct is alleged to have procured a breach of contract between the plaintiff and the Gellatly Construction Company. Upon a trial of the case judgment was rendered for the defendants. The question raised is whether each defendant is entitled to a separate bill of costs by way of indemnity for services before trial and trial fees. The action is at law and consequently the *324 -costs to be taxed are the creature of statute. Condon vs. Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 614.

Section 2271 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, provides that the prevailing party in a civil action in the ^Superior Court shall receive by way of indemnity the following sums: “For all proceedings before trial, ten dollars; for the ■trial of ,an issue of... .fact, fifteen dollars.” The defendants ■contend that under this statute each is entitled to have taxed in his favor the sum of $25 for the items above specified. In ■the opinion of the court they are not so entitled. The statute referred to has not been expressly construed in accordance with 'this opinion but similar language in section 5661 has been held in Sanford vs. French, 45 Conn. 101, to limit the taxation to ■one bill of costs though there be more than one prevailing party. Also, the implied suggestion in Chambelis vs. Connecticut Co., 93 Conn. 658, that where one action is brought against several ■parties which results in one trial in favor of them all, but one indemnity fee is to be taxed, supports the court’s view. Therefore one bill of costs may be taxed in favor of all the defendants.

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

BOOTH, J.

The action is to recover of the defendants damages for alleged conduct upon their part which conduct is alleged to have procured a breach of contract between the plaintiff and the Gellatly Construction Company. Upon a trial of the case judgment was rendered for the defendants. The question raised is whether each defendant is entitled to a separate bill of costs by way of indemnity for services before trial and trial fees. The action is at law and consequently the *324 -costs to be taxed are the creature of statute. Condon vs. Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 614.

Section 2271 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, provides that the prevailing party in a civil action in the ^Superior Court shall receive by way of indemnity the following sums: “For all proceedings before trial, ten dollars; for the ■trial of ,an issue of... .fact, fifteen dollars.” The defendants ■contend that under this statute each is entitled to have taxed in his favor the sum of $25 for the items above specified. In ■the opinion of the court they are not so entitled. The statute referred to has not been expressly construed in accordance with 'this opinion but similar language in section 5661 has been held in Sanford vs. French, 45 Conn. 101, to limit the taxation to ■one bill of costs though there be more than one prevailing party. Also, the implied suggestion in Chambelis vs. Connecticut Co., 93 Conn. 658, that where one action is brought against several ■parties which results in one trial in favor of them all, but one indemnity fee is to be taxed, supports the court’s view. Therefore one bill of costs may be taxed in favor of all the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 323, 8 Conn. Supp. 323, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahl-v-town-of-danbury-connsuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack