ARCAMBEL V. WISEMAN
| Citation | 3 U. S. 306 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
COURT OF RHODE ISLAND
Counsel fees in the courts below cannot be allowed as damages.
Where they have been allowed in the circuit court, the charge may be expunged by entering a remittitur.
The decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island was affirmed in this cause without argument, the principal question which it involved having been just decided upon the discussion of another writ of error. It appeared, however, by an estimate of the damages on which the decree was founded and which was annexed to the record that a charge of ,600 for counsel fees in the courts below had been allowed, to which Coxe objected, and Ingersoll contended that it might fairly be included under the idea of damages. But
By The court: We do not think that this charge ought to be allowed. The general practice of the United States is in opposition to it, and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the Court, till it is changed or modified, by statute.
There are several ways in which the charge may be expunged, but we recommend as perhaps the easiest way that the counsel for the defendant in error should enter a remittitur for the amount.
A remittitur was accordingly entered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesco Ins. Co. v. Roderick Linton Belfance, LLP
...... See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y , 421 U.S. 240, 247–50, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (citing Arcambel v. Wiseman , 3 U.S. 306, 3 Dall. 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) ). Plaintiffs, for example, generally cannot claim their attorney's fees as part of the ......
-
Calcutt v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...... See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y , 421 U.S. 240, 249–50, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (citing Arcambel v. Wiseman , 3 U.S. 306, 3 Dall. 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) ). When a statute allows a plaintiff to recover "damages," then, courts do not read that ......
-
E. Shore Title Co. v. Ochse
......The American Rule is rooted in "common 160 A.3d 1254 law reaching 453 Md. 330 back to at least the 18th century." Id. (citing Arcambel v. Wiseman , 3 U.S. 306, 3 Dall. 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) ). Maryland follows the American Rule. Nova Research, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. , ......
-
Brandon v. Sherwood (In re Sann)
......The American Rule has roots in our common law reaching back to at least the 18th century, see Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306, 3 U.S. 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796), and "[s]tatutes which invade the common law are to be read with a presumption favoring the ......
-
International Arbitration Comparative Guide
...its own costs and attorneys' fees in litigation, regardless of outcome and absent an explicit agreement to the contrary (Arcambel v Wiseman, 3 US 306, 306 (1796)). Choosing a foreign law to govern the contract that provides for prevailing party attorneys' fees may not displace this presumpt......
-
The Price of Principle
...PAWilmington, Del.1 Stephen Lucas, The Quotable George Washington: The Wisdom of an American Patriot, p.52 (Rowman & Littlefield1999). 2 3 U.S. 306 (1796).3 Id.Coordinating EditorLeslie A. BerkoffMoritt Hock & Hamroff LLP; New 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 • (70......
-
Fee-Shifting in Bankruptcy.
...be paid in almost all circumstances.") (111) Baker & Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121, 135 (2015) (quoting Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306, 306 (1796)). In fact, it is probably not true that the American Rule was the general practice in 1796. John Leubsdorf, Toward a History of the......
-
Pool Houses and Public Policy: The Uncollectability of Contractual Attorney Fees in Missouri.
...the condominium documents expressly so provide") (emphasis added); OKLA. STAT. tit. 60, [section] 856 (1986). (73) Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306 (1797). The boat at issue was allegedly outfitted by private citizens to capture enemy boats on the high seas. Aaron Bartholomew & Sharon Ya......