followed.
The successful party was recognized to have a prima facie claim to
costs, but the court might, on sufficient cause shown, not only deprive
him of his costs, but even in some rare cases order him to pay the costs
of his unsuccessful opponent. There was a class of cases in which the
court generally gave costs to parties sustaining a certain character,
whatever might be the result of the suit (e.g. trustees, executors and
mortgagees).

In the courts of common law, costs were not given either to plaintiff or
defendant, although the damages given to a successful plaintiff might
suffice to cover not only the loss sustained by the wrong done, but also
the expense he had been put to in taking proceedings. The defendant in a
baseless or vexatious action could not even recover his costs thus
indirectly, and the indirect costs given to a plaintiff under the name
of damages were often inadequate and uncertain. Costs were first given
under the Statute of Gloucester (1277, 6 Edward I. c. 1), which enacted
that "the demandant shall recover damages in an assize of novel
disseisin and in writs of mort d'ancestor, cosinage, aiel and beziel,
and further that the demandant may recover against the tenant the costs
of his writ purchased together with the damages above said. And this act
shall hold in all cases when the party is to recover damages." The words
"costs of his writ" were extended to mean all the legal costs in the
suit. The statute gave costs, wherever damages were recovered, and no
matter what the amount of the damages may be. Costs were first given to
a defendant by the Statute of Marlbridge (1267) in a case relating to
wardship in chivalry (52 Henry III. C. 6); but costs were not given
generally to successful defendants until 1531 (23 Henry VIII. c. 15),
when it was enacted that "if in the actions therein mentioned the
plaintiff after appearance of the defendant be non-suited, or any
verdict happen to pass by lawful trial against the plaintiff, the
defendant shall have judgment to recover his costs against the
plaintiff, to be assessed and taxed at the discretion of the court, and
shall have such process and execution for the recovery and paying his
costs against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff should or might have had
against the defendant, in case the judgment had been given for the
plaintiff." In 1606 by 4 James I. c. 3, this "good and profitable law"
was extended to other actions not originally specified, althou