State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 20 July 1909 |
| Citation | 73 A. 751,82 Conn. 392 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ANDERSON. |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County.
Tillie Anderson successfully prosecuted an appeal from a conviction of crime, and appeals from the refusal of the clerk to tax costs in her favor. Affirmed.
See 72 Atl. 648.
Ernest L. Averill, for appellant.
Robert J. Woodruff, Pros. Atty., for the State.
BALDWIN, C. J. Costs are never taxable, unless given by statute. Studwell v. Cooke, 38 Conn. 549. Gen. St. 1902, § 1521, grants a right to the defendant in a criminal prosecution before the criminal court of common pleas to an appeal to this court "in the same manner and with the same effect as in civil actions." The defendant was successful (82 Conn. 111, 72 Atl. 648) in procuring on appeal a reversal of a judgment of conviction rendered in the criminal court of common pleas. Gen. St. 1902, § 811, provides that, when a Judgment shall be reversed by this court, "it may render judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, or appellant, to recover of the defendant the damages he has sustained by such erroneous judgment, together with his costs on the writ of error or appeal, or may remand the cause to the court below to be proceeded with by said court to final judgment, in which case the whole costs, except the costs on the writ of error, or appeal, shall be taxed in favor of the prevailing party; and the costs in the Supreme Court of Errors shall be taxed in favor of the plaintiff in error, or appellant." The rules of this court, under this statute (Practice Book, p. 284, § 62), provide that "in all cases on appeal, whether for legal or equitable relief, when 'error' is found, whether a new trial be awarded or not, the costs of this court (including the expense allowable for printing evidence or evidence and rulings made a part of the record), in the absence of special order to the contrary, will be taxed in the judgment of this court in favor of the prevailing party in this court."
The words of Gen. St. 1902, §§ 811, 1521, and of our rules (section 62), if taken literally, would support the defendant's claim. But it is a general principle that what courts cannot enforce they cannot decree. Clarke's Appeal, 70 Conn. 195, 209, 39 Atl. 155. The state, by which the prosecution was brought, cannot be sued without its consent. It holds the immunities from legal process, mesne or final, belonging by the English common law to the king. State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Ives
...585, 79 A.2d 600; Anselmo v. Cox, 135 Conn. 78, 80, 60 A.2d 767, cert. denied,335 U.S. 859, 69 S.Ct. 132, 93 L.Ed. 405; State v. Anderson, 82 Conn. 392, 394, 73 A. 751; State v. Kilburn, 81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028. The legislature waived the state's sovereign immunity from suit in certain p......
-
Doe v. Heintz
...which at common law belonged to the King and there would be no power in the court to enforce its decree." Id.; State v. Anderson, 82 Conn. 392, 393-94, 73 A. 751 (1909). "[I]t is a general principle that what courts cannot enforce they cannot decree." State v. Anderson, supra, 393, 73 A. 75......
-
St. George v. Gordon
...from suit and immunity from liability appears to have been recognized in State v. Kilburn, [supra, 81 Conn. 11], and State v. Anderson, 82 Conn. 392, 394, 73 A. 751 [1909]. The great majority of the courts of other jurisdictions make this same distinction and hold that a statute granting co......
-
Bergner v. State
...suit and immunity from liability appears to have been recognized in State v. Kilburn, 81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028, and State v. Anderson, 82 Conn. 392, 394, 73 A. 751. The great majority of the courts of other jurisdictions make this same distinction and hold that a statute granting consent ......