Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Arcambel v. Wiseman
Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306 (1796)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1796-08-12
- Topic
- commercial
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.” | “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.” | in which this rule originated | in which this rule originated | in which this rule originated
Citator
- Cited by
- 69 opinions
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