28' recERAir, bepokteb. �from the state court to this court. If the case had continuect in the state couri, the plaintiff's recovery would hâve carried costs, for under the statuts of Ohio a plaintiff recovering in an action of this charaôter would recover costs. The case was removed to this court, and it is very clear that the statuto which I hâve read does not apply to this case, for it expressly provides, "in an action at law originaUy brought in this court ; " and this action was not originally brought in this court. �This question is not, however, a new one. It has been before the courts before, and such has been the détermination of the courts whenever they hâve had the question before them. Field v. Schell, 4 Blatchf, 435 ; Ellis v. Jarcis, 3 Mason, 457. �This case having been removed from the state court into this court by the défendant, and recovery had against him in this court for an amount which would hâve carried costs be- low, he would be adjudged to pay the costs in this court. �There is another considération in this case : Ihat is, there was a counter claim in it; and had the case been originally brought in this court, and it had appeared by the verdict of the jury that the plaintiff, nponhis claim, would hâve been entitled to the recovery of more than $500, and also that by the verdict it was shown that the jury had found in favor of the défendant upon his counter claim, and that amount being less than the plaintifif's claim,, and deducted from the plamtiff's claim, reduced it to leas than $500, the question might still remain whether the plaintiff would not be entitled to costs. But that is not necessary to be decided in this case. �The judgment wiU therefore be entered upon the verdict, mth costs. ����
Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/40
This page needs to be proofread.