ELLETT
v.
VIRGINIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Virginia sought to recover costs included in a judgment from a prior action, and Ellett argued these costs belonged to the individual officers who performed services rather than to the State itself. The Supreme Court held that costs recovered by the State in an original action constitute a debt owed to the State rather than to the officers, since the officers' fee demands were against the State, which then recovered those amounts against the defendant. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this determination.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Bradley continued, delivering the opinion of the court:
The point made in this case is, that the costs included in the judgment on which the present suit was brought were not a debt due to the State of Virginia in her own right, but were due to the officers in whose favor they were taxed and whose services they were to compensate. We think that this point is untenable. The costs were recovered by the State of Virginia in the original action, to compensate her for the fees which she had to pay to the officers for their services. The demand of the officers for their costs was a demand .against the State of Virginia, and not against the defendant ; and by reason o.f this demand against her, she was entitled to recover the amount against the defendant; so that in no legal sense can it be said that the costs included in the judgment belonged to the officers áñd not to the State. They were recovered by her in form, and they belonged to her, when recovered, in substance. We are, of opinion, therefore, that
This judgment must also he reversed; and the record' remanded for the purpose of such proceedings as may' he repaired in due course of law, in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elmendorf v. Taylor and others, 10 Wheat. 152 (U.S. 1825)
- Montgomery Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351 (U.S. 1828)
- Asa Green v. The Lessee of Henry Neal, 6 Pet. 291 (U.S. 1832)
- Gustavus T. Beauregard v. The City of New Orleans, 18 How. 497 (U.S. 1855)
- Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black 532 (U.S. 1862)
- City of Richmond v. Smith, 15 Wall. 429 (U.S. 1872)