Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 4
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
COLLINS & CORBIN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
CLEMENT K. CORBIN
ROBERT J. BAIN
EDWARD A. MARKLEY
CHARLES w. BROADHURST
HOWARD F. MCINTYRE JAMES B. EMORY
JAN 2 1935
1 EXCHANGE PLACE,
JERSEY CITY, N.J.
PATRICK F. MC DEVITT
JOHN F. LEONARD
JAMES J. LANGAN
ADOLPH s. HUMMEL
RAYMOND J. LAMB
EARLE J. HARRINGTON
STANLEY G. BROOKS
December 31, 1935.
Vincent P. La Porte, Admr. ad pros. etc. VS.
United States Radium Corp.
Chas. Stockdell Gray, Esq.,
Counsel, Globe Indemnity Co.,
20 Washington Place,
Newark, N. J.
Howard H. Barker, Esq.,
Vice Pres., United States Radium Co.
535 Pearl Street,
New York City.
Gentlemen:
On last Friday, December 27, 1935, at Trenton, I
appeared before Judge Forman upon presentation of final decree
in the above equity suit. Mr. Emmerglick appe ared for the
plaintiff, Mr. Smith for the New Amsterdam Casualt y Company,
Mr. Gray and I for the Globe Indemnity Company and Mr. Barker
for the United States Radium Corporation. The form of decree
as presented was not objected to either by the court or by Mr.
Enmerglick, but the court brought up the subject of providing
compensation to a limited degree for Mr. Emmerglick, counsel
for the plaintiff and also to provide for payment of his dis-
bursements. In fact, this matter had been called to the
attention of counsel by the court before attending at Trenton,
so that they might give it consideration.
I prepared a memorandum on the legal right of the
court to compel the United States Radium Corporation to make
payment of the counsel fee and disbursements. While the law is
not entirely clear it seems to be fairly clear that the e ourt
has no right to allow a counsel fee to the defeated party as
against the preva iling party. For instance, in the case of
Higgins V. Baton, 204 Fed. 273 C.C.A. 2d Circuit) the court
said:
"Costs can seldom be awarded against a prevailing party
unless he has been guilty of some fault or omission.
In
the
case of Hodgman, et al V. Atlantic Refining Co., 20 Fed (2d) 949,
the District Court for the District of Delaware held that while
the allowance of costs was discretionary, that that discretion
is not an arbitrary one. "In its discretion this court must be
governed by the rule pertaining thereto. The general principle
is that in suits in equity as in actions at law, the prevailing
party is entitled to costs. This principle must be applied
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 285a2ed7ddd89ff4
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75729209
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75729209",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to Chas. Stockdell Gray, Howard H. Barker [H.H. Barker], December 31, 1935",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 4,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75729209",
"label": "Letters Received to Chas. Stockdell Gray, Howard H. Barker [H.H. Barker], December 31, 1935",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75729209",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to Chas. Stockdell Gray, Howard H. Barker [H.H. Barker], December 31, 1935",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 4,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75729209",
"naId": 75729209,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003289_Page_1.jpg",
"mediaId": "285a2ed7ddd89ff4",
"ocrText": "COLLINS & CORBIN\nCOUNSELLORS AT LAW\nCLEMENT K. CORBIN\nROBERT J. BAIN\nEDWARD A. MARKLEY\nCHARLES w. BROADHURST\nHOWARD F. MCINTYRE JAMES B. EMORY\nJAN 2 1935\n1 EXCHANGE PLACE,\nJERSEY CITY, N.J.\nPATRICK F. MC DEVITT\nJOHN F. LEONARD\nJAMES J. LANGAN\nADOLPH s. HUMMEL\nRAYMOND J. LAMB\nEARLE J. HARRINGTON\nSTANLEY G. BROOKS\nDecember 31, 1935.\nVincent P. La Porte, Admr. ad pros. etc. VS.\nUnited States Radium Corp.\nChas. Stockdell Gray, Esq.,\nCounsel, Globe Indemnity Co.,\n20 Washington Place,\nNewark, N. J.\nHoward H. Barker, Esq.,\nVice Pres., United States Radium Co.\n535 Pearl Street,\nNew York City.\nGentlemen:\nOn last Friday, December 27, 1935, at Trenton, I\nappeared before Judge Forman upon presentation of final decree\nin the above equity suit. Mr. Emmerglick appe ared for the\nplaintiff, Mr. Smith for the New Amsterdam Casualt y Company,\nMr. Gray and I for the Globe Indemnity Company and Mr. Barker\nfor the United States Radium Corporation. The form of decree\nas presented was not objected to either by the court or by Mr.\nEnmerglick, but the court brought up the subject of providing\ncompensation to a limited degree for Mr. Emmerglick, counsel\nfor the plaintiff and also to provide for payment of his dis-\nbursements. In fact, this matter had been called to the\nattention of counsel by the court before attending at Trenton,\nso that they might give it consideration.\nI prepared a memorandum on the legal right of the\ncourt to compel the United States Radium Corporation to make\npayment of the counsel fee and disbursements. While the law is\nnot entirely clear it seems to be fairly clear that the e ourt\nhas no right to allow a counsel fee to the defeated party as\nagainst the preva iling party. For instance, in the case of\nHiggins V. Baton, 204 Fed. 273 C.C.A. 2d Circuit) the court\nsaid:\n\"Costs can seldom be awarded against a prevailing party\nunless he has been guilty of some fault or omission.\nIn\nthe\ncase of Hodgman, et al V. Atlantic Refining Co., 20 Fed (2d) 949,\nthe District Court for the District of Delaware held that while\nthe allowance of costs was discretionary, that that discretion\nis not an arbitrary one. \"In its discretion this court must be\ngoverned by the rule pertaining thereto. The general principle\nis that in suits in equity as in actions at law, the prevailing\nparty is entitled to costs. This principle must be applied"
}