Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett

D.C. Circuit

Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett

53 F.2d 149, 60 App. D.C. 291, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2629

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1931

DocketNo. 5096

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 53 F.2d 149 (Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett, 53 F.2d 149, 60 App. D.C. 291, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2629 (D.C. Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

HITZ, Associate Justice.

This is a cross-appeal taken by the defendants below in Hammett v. Minar et al., 60 App. D. C. 286, 53 F.(2d) 144, just decided.

The only question presented for decision is based upon the allowance of costs to the plaintiff while dismissing her bill of complaint, which question was presented by brief and argument at the bar.

-d . ,, ,, o , . .. But the allowance of costs m equity is ,, , , a matter of discretion with the court, not usually reviewa.ble on appeal, and the court below twice considered the question of these costs, and twice came to the same eonclusion regarding them; on the second occasion saying, “The adjudication of costs against the defendants in my former memorandum was not a clerical error, but intentional. I think that the Court is fully justified under the facts of this ease in so adjudging costs.”

And in our disposition of the main ease on its merits, we have directed that the costs be paid by the defendants.

So much of the decree appealed from in this cross-appeal awarding costs to plaintiff is affirmed, with costs.

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

HITZ, Associate Justice.

This is a cross-appeal taken by the defendants below in Hammett v. Minar et al., 60 App. D. C. 286, 53 F.(2d) 144, just decided.

The only question presented for decision is based upon the allowance of costs to the plaintiff while dismissing her bill of complaint, which question was presented by brief and argument at the bar.

-d . ,, ,, o , . .. But the allowance of costs m equity is ,, , , a matter of discretion with the court, not usually reviewa.ble on appeal, and the court below twice considered the question of these costs, and twice came to the same eonclusion regarding them; on the second occasion saying, “The adjudication of costs against the defendants in my former memorandum was not a clerical error, but intentional. I think that the Court is fully justified under the facts of this ease in so adjudging costs.”

And in our disposition of the main ease on its merits, we have directed that the costs be paid by the defendants.

So much of the decree appealed from in this cross-appeal awarding costs to plaintiff is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.2d 149, 60 App. D.C. 291, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruby-lee-minar-inc-v-hammett-cadc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack