Hill v. Smith , 32 F. 753 ( 1887 )

Butler, J.

The complainant should have costs to date of the decree, entered April 30, 1886. To that point of time he was successful. The costs subsequently created, arose from the prosecution of his claim to damages. In making this claim he was unsuccessful. In view of the circumstances, he should bear the costs created by pressing it. The result shows that they were unnecessarily incurred. If he had been deceived or misled, or by other means induced by the respondent to set up and prosecute the claim, a different view might, and no doubt would, be entertained. The complainant knew, however, or might have known, before entering upon the subject, all ho knows now. He took the chances, and he must bear the consequences.

The second exception (to the proposed decree) is for these reasons sustained. The others are dismissed.