80HHIEDE& V. BABNIiT. 451 �should follow tHose decisions if it appears that, by reason of the situation Of the parties and 6f the subject-matter, to hold otherwise would subject a party to double payment of the same debt, withbut the possibility of relief from the fedeial courts. The motion for a new trial is overruled. ���SoHuiEDEB and others v. Babket. �(Ovreutt Court, 8. B. New York. AprU 2, 1881.) �1. Pbacticb— Attokney'b Dookbt Fbb— Tbial — Rev. 8t. { i,iA. �In a suit atlaw there were three trials beforea jury, resulting upon the flrst trial in a verdict for the plaintiS, but followed, upon the second and third trials, in two separate verdicts for the defendant. Edd, under section 824 of the Bevised Statutes, that the defendant's attorney was entitled to a docket fee of $20 for each of the three trials.— [Ed. �Almon W. Oriswold, for plaintiffs. �Thomas Oreenwood, Asst. Dist. Att'y, for defendant. �Blatohfobb, 0. J. In this case, a suit at law, there were three trials before a jury. In the first there was a verdict for the plaintiffs, in the second a verdict for the defendant, and in the third a verdict for the defendant. In taxing the de- fendant's costs, after the third verdict, the clerk allowed ah attorney's trial fee of $20 to the defendant for each of the three trials. The plaintiffs have appealed from such allow- ance, claiming that but one trial fee of $20 should be allowed. The provision of the statute (Eev. St. § 824) is that the com- pensation to be taxed and allowed to an attorney, "on a trial before a jury," in a civil case, shall be "a docket fee of $20." There have been three trials before a jury in this case. It bas required such three trials to enable the defendant to secure the present resuit. The plaintiffs had the first verdict, and the defendant obtained a new trial. The defendant had the second verdict, but the plaintiffs obtained a new trial. Each of the three trials was a complete trial. A trial is not deprived of its character as a trial in f act because the verdict ��� �
