ries thereof, there shall not be allowed thereon more costs than on one libel, unless special cause for libelling the vessel and cargo severally shall be satisfactorily shown as aforesaid. And in proceedingsNo more costs than one libel or information for the same cause of forfeiture. on several libels or informations against any cargo or parts of cargo or merchandise seized as forfeited for the same cause, there shall not be allowed by the court more costs than would be lawful on one libel or information, whatever ever may be the number of owners or consignees therein concerned: but allowance may be made on one libel or information for the costs incidental to several claims: Provided, Proviso. That in case of a claim of any vessel or other property seized on behalf of the United States and libelled informed againstOn a claim of property libelled, if the property is restored, the claimant shall only pay his own costs.
Causes may be consolidated, to avoid the unnecessary costs or delay.
Attorney or proctor to pay excess costs if proceedings have been multiplied unreasonably. as forfeited under any of the laws thereof, if judgment shall pass in favour of the claimant, he shall be entitled to the same upon paying only his own costs.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever causes of like nature, or relative to the same question shall be pending before a court of the United States or of the territories thereof, it shall be lawful for the court to make such orders and rules concerning proceedings therein as may be conformable to the principles and usages belonging to courts for unnecessary avoiding unnecessary costs or delay in the administration of justice, and accordingly causes may be consolidated as to the court shall appear reasonable. And if any attorney, proctor, or other person admitted to manage and conduct causes in a court of the United States or of the territories thereof, shall appear to have multiplied the proceedings in any cause before the court so as to increase costs unreasonably and vexatiously, such person may be required by order of court to satisfy any excess of costs so incurred.
Approved, July 22, 1813.
38. The plaintiff having recovered at law, the court directed the costs of the bill of discovery, by which the plaintiffs at law were prevented recovering, should be paid by the defendants in the bill; they being plaintiffs at law. Lessee of Bowne v. Brown et al. 2 Wash. C. C. R. 271.
39. The clerk of the court is a competent judge of the amount of costs which can be recovered in on action; and money paid to him is in the safe keeping of the court, and subject to its disposal. Willings et al. v. Consequa, 1 Peters’ C. C. R. 301.
40. In a case of tort, several costs of travel, attendance, and attorney’s fees will he allowed to the several defendants, whether the pleadings are joint or several. Crosby v. Folger, 1 Sumner’s Rep. 514.
41. In case of a claim on proceeds in the custody of the court, where other parties are entitled, no costs can be allowed beyond those for which there is a specific lien, and the actual charges of court. No attorney’s fees can be allowed. The Jerusalem, 2 Gallis. 345.
42. Query. If a consul, who sues for a penalty, in his own name and person, but for the benefit of the United States, is liable for costs? Levy v. Burley, 2 Sumner’s C. C. R. 355.
43. After notice of trial, the defendant cannot move to put off the trial, until the costs of a former ejectment be paid, without notice that such a motion would be made; nor can it prevail under any circumstances, if the costs be demanded on an ejectment, which had been decided in the state court. Den v. Bacon & Sharp, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 578.
44. In an action for the violation of a patent right, the plaintiff having recovered a verdict for three cents damage, is not entitled to full costs under the 20th sec. of the judicial act of September 24th, 1789, ch. 20. Kneas v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 100.
45. Where the plaintiff, being a non-resident, has filed security for costs, conditioned to pay them, “if the plaintiff does not prosecute his suit to effect, and does not pay the costs of the suit,” in case the plaintiff succeeds, the sureties are exonerated from the payment of any costs; but the plaintiff is responsible to the officers of the court for his own costs, and the court will enforce the payment of them by attachment. Lessee of Bowne v. Arbuncle, 1 Peters’ C. C. R. 234.
Supreme Court, January Term, 1838.
Rule of Court No. 44.
In all cases, where any suit shall be dismissed in the Supreme Court, except where the dismissal shall be for want of jurisdiction, costs shall be allowed for the defendant in error, or appellee, as the case may be, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
In all cases of affirmances of any judgment or decree in the Supreme Court, costs shall be allowed to the defendant in error, or appellee, as the case may be, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
In all cases of reversals of any judgment or decree in the Supreme Court, except where the reversal shall be for want of jurisdiction, costs shall be allowed in the Supreme Court for the plaintiff in error, or appellant, as the case may be; unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Neither of the foregoing rules shall apply to cases where the United States are a party; but in such cases no costs shall be allowed in the Supreme Court for or against the United States.
When costs are allowed in the Supreme Court, it shall be the duty of the clerk to insert the amount thereof in the body of the mandate, or other proper process, sent to the court below; and annex to the same the bill of item taxed in detail.
