28 A.2d 531 | N.J. | 1942
The action is in tort for negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. There was a verdict of $5,000 for the infant plaintiff and $1,000 for his father. Thereupon, the clerk taxed the costs at the rate laid down in R.S. 1937, 22:2-9. Defendant was allowed a rule to show cause why the awards should not be set aside as excessive; and, after argument, the trial judge directed that the rule be made absolute unless consents were given to the reduction of the first to $2,500 and the second to $500. The condition was fulfilled. The clerk taxed costs in favor of plaintiffs on the rule to show cause, without notice to defendant. On error the judgment entered on the verdict as thus reduced was affirmed.
And now, upon the coming down of the remittitur, plaintiffs move for the allowance of double costs, not only in the Court of Errors and Appeals, but in the Supreme Court on the judgment and on the rule to show cause. Defendant maintains that double costs are not recoverable, and that costs should be taxed in its favor on the rule to show cause.
Only ordinary costs are allowable on the judgment entered in the Supreme Court. The right to costs is a creature of statute; there is no such allowance at common law. Lehigh Valley RailroadCo. v. McFarland,
These sections plainly have reference only to the taxation of costs in the appellate court. Statutory provisions for costs are strictly construed, especially those of a penal character, such as are now under consideration. Shields v. Lozear,
And defendant is not chargeable with costs on the rule to show cause, for it prevailed in substantial part on the issue thereby raised. In such circumstances, neither party is entitled to costs. Compare Robinson v. Hedges,
It is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to double the costs allowed in the Court of Errors and Appeals on the affirmance of the judgment. That is the exclusive function of the court of last resort. Such costs are an integral part of the latter judgment, rather than an incident of the judgment entered in the Supreme Court. Hopper v. Smith,
An order may be entered in conformity with these conclusions, without costs. *179