Austin versus Snow's Lessee

Austin versus Snow’s Lessee. IN Error.—An action of ejectment being referred, the referrees found for the plaintiff, with coils, but without damages. On arguing the case, Lewis contended, that this was bad, damages being essential to the award of costs. It is so, even in ejectment, at this day. 3 Bl. Com. Say. Law. Costs. 4. 2 Stra. 1051. He also urged, that the judgment was entire, and could not be reversed as to the coils, and confirmed as to the residue. Ingersoll said, that costs might be given where damages were recoverable; and although they are not given, Law of Eject. 365. and that judgment might be affirmed for part, and reversed for part., 2 L. Ray, 893. 4. Ib. 1534. 11 Co. 56. Besides, this was a reference where niceties were dispensed with. It is aligning that for error, which is for the plaintiff’s advantage. [MAJORITY — By the Court:] By the Court: —We are here upon a point of practice. The usage of referring ejectments, as well as accounts, is very ancient; and it has been the constant usage to confirm awards, although no damages, or costs, are found. It would shake many judgments, were niceties to prevail. Judgment affirmed.