University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
collapse section18. 
expand section18.1. 
 18.2. 
expand section18.3. 
 18.4. 
expand section18.5. 
 18.6. 
expand section18.7. 
 18.8. 
 18.9. 
 18.10. 
 18.11. 
 18.12. 
 18.13. 
 18.14. 
expand section18.15. 
 18.16. 
expand section18.17. 
 18.18. 
collapse section18.19. 
  
  
 18.20. 
 18.21. 
expand section18.22. 
 18.23. 
expand section18.24. 
expand section18.25. 
expand section18.26. 
expand section18.27. 
expand section18.28. 
expand section18.29. 
expand section18.30. 
expand section18.31. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

28.35. 35. Of the Costs.

In former times no one was condemned in the lay courts of France to the payment of costs. [257] The party cast was sufficiently punished by pecuniary fines to the lord and his peers. From the manner of proceeding by judicial combat it followed, that the party condemned and deprived of life and fortune was punished as much as he could be: and in the other cases of the judicial combat, there were fines sometimes fixed, and sometimes dependent on the disposition of the lord, which were sufficient to make people dread the consequences of suits. The same may be said of causes that were not decided by combat. As the lord had the chief profits, so he was also at the chief expense, either to assemble his peers, or to enable them to proceed to judgment. Besides, as disputes were generally determined at the same place, and almost always at the same time, without that infinite multitude of writings which afterwards followed, there was no necessity of allowing costs to the parties.

The custom of appeals naturally introduced that of giving costs. Thus Dfontaines says, [258] that when they appealed by written law, that is, when they followed the new laws of St. Louis, they gave costs; but that in the ordinary practice, which did not permit them to appeal without falsifying the judgment, no costs were allowed. They obtained only a fine, and the possession for a year and a day of the thing contested, if the cause was remanded to the lord.

But when the number of appeals increased from the new facility of appealing; [259] when by the frequent usage of those appeals from one court to another, the parties were continually removed from the place of their residence; when the new method of procedure multiplied and prolonged the suits; when the art of eluding the very justest demands became refined; when the parties at law knew how to fly only in order to be followed; when plaints were ruinous and defence easy; when the arguments were lost in whole volumes of words and writings; when the kingdom was filled with limbs of the law, who were strangers to justice; when knavery found encouragement at the very place where it did not find protection; then it was necessary to deter litigious people by the fear of costs. They were obliged to pay costs for the judgment and for the means they had employed to elude it. Charles the Fair made a general ordinance on that subject. [260]

Footnotes

[257]

Defontaines in his counsel, chapter 22, arts. 3, 8; and Beaumanoir, 33. "Institutions," i. 90.

[258]

Chapter 22, art. 8.

[259]

At present when they are so inclined to appeal, says Boutillier -- "Somme Rurale," book i, tit. 3, p. 16, Paris, 1621.

[260]

In the year 1324.