Ruby Lee Minar Inc. v. Hammett, 5096.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5096.,5096. |
| Citation | 60 App. DC 291,53 F.2d 149 |
| Parties | RUBY LEE MINAR, Inc., et al. v. HAMMETT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
John S. Barbour, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Julius I. Peyser and Milton Strasburger, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
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.
But the allowance of costs in equity is a matter of discretion with the court, not usually reviewable on appeal, and the court below twice considered the question of these costs, and twice came to the same conclusion regarding them; on the second occasion saying,
And in our disposition of the main case 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scholla v. Scholla, 11267
...we think the court acted within its authority and discretion, notwithstanding dimissal of the complaint. See Ruby Lee Minar Inc., v. Hammett, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 291, 53 F.2d 149, where this court affirmed the allowance of costs to a plaintiff in an equity suit, notwithstanding dismissal of t......
-
Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., Inc.
...similarly inapposite is appellees' assertion of the equitable discretion of the court to allocate costs. See Ruby Lee Minar, Inc. v. Hammett, 60 App.D.C. 291, 53 F.2d 149 (1931), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 682, 52 S.Ct. 200, 76 L.Ed. 576 6. See note 1 supra, and accompanying text. ...
-
Shima v. Brown
...& Georgetown Railroad Co. v. American Car Co., 5 App.D.C. 524, 548; Burlingame v. Manchester, 44 App.D.C. 335; Ruby Lee Minar, Inc., v. Hammett, 60 App.D.C. 291, 53 F.2d 149, certiorari denied, 284 U.S. 682, 52 S.Ct. 200, 76 L.Ed. 576; Moran v. Washington Ry. & Electric Co., 64 App.D.C. 3, ......
-
Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 72.
...appeal related solely to the costs). Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 82-84, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909; Minar Inc., v. Hammett, 60 App.D.C. 291, 53 F.2d 149; In re Michigan Cent. R. Co., 6 Cir., 124 F. 727, 732; Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 2 Cir., 111 F......