Whitmore v. Rumple
Whitmore v. Rumple
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
1st. It is true that the fee bill, as it is usually
2d. As there is no specific provision by law for the charge of keeping horses, and is only included in the general provision, that all necessary expenses are to be allowed in addition to those enumerated, (1 Brevard's Dig. 344,) it must always remain a matter of discretion with the Court, and must depend on time, place,' and circumstances ; which having been, as I am bound to presume, discreetly exercised, unless the contrary appears, I think conclusive.
3d. The act of February, 1791, above referred to, (1 Brevard's Dig. 344,) provides, that the Sheriff shall be allowed “ for levying an execution on the goods of the defendant, and selling the same; for all sums, when the debt does not exceed £100, 2|- per cent, commissions; and for all sums, when the debt exceeds £100, 1 per
I am of opinion, therefore, that the motion ought to be granted on the first ground, only so far as relates to the difference between the sum allowed for dieting negroes, and the charge made by the defendant, and that the rule shall be made absolute for the remainder.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- George Whitmore against David Rumple Frisk against The same
- Status
- Published