Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Arcambel v. Wiseman

Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 (1796)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1796-08-12
Topic
commercial

How later courts describe this case

  • striking inclusion of attorney fees in award of damages because “[t]he general practice of the United States is in opposition to it”
  • “Each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”
  • “The general practice of the United States [courts] is in opposition to [attorney’s fees awards]; and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court.”
  • “The general practice of the United States is in opposition to [awarding attorney’s fees]... and ... that practice ... is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by statute.”
  • in which this rule originated

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Arcambel v. Wiseman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
150 opinions
ARCAMBEL v. WISEMAN,3 U.S. 306(1796)
ARCAMBELversusWISEMAN.
AUGUST TERM, 1796.
THE decree of the Circuit Court, for the District ofRhodeIsland, was affirmed in this cause, without argument, the principal question, which it involved, having been just decided upon the discussion of another writ of error. It appeared, however, by an estimate of the damages on which the decree was founded, and which was annexed to the record, that a charge of 1600 dollars for counsel's fees in the courts below, had been allowed; to whichCoxeobjected; andIngersollcontended that it might fairly be included under the idea of damages. But

BY THE COURT: — We do not think that this charge ought to be allowed. The general practice of theUnited Statesis in opposition to it; and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by statute.

There are several ways in which the charge may be expunged: but we recommend, as, perhaps, the easiest way, that the counsel for the Defendant in error, should enter aremittiturfor the amount.

Aremittiturwas accordingly entered.Page 307