Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Scott versus M'Kisson, 1792 — 2 U.S. 183 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
Scott versus M'Kisson
2 U.S. 1832 Dall. 183·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1792·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Scott versus M‘Kisson.
THIS was a special assumpsit, on the part of the defendant, to make up the depreciation of a certain sum of money, paid by him to the plaintiff's agent, if the plaintiff refused to receive it as specie. Upon a reference, the referrees awarded only four pounds ; and, as the cause had been removed by the defendant, it then became a question, whether the plaintiff should recover double, or any other, costs.
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
—Double costs is a relative term ; and it has been settled, that the plaintiff shall not recover double costs here, when, in the Court below, he could not be intitled to recover any. Under the late act, giving jurisdiction to the Justices, the large powers vested in them seem to embrace this cause of action. There are indeed exclusive words in the act, but they do not comprehend the present case. There must, therefore, be
Judgment without costs.