Davis v. Hastings
This text of 62 Mass. 313 (Davis v. Hastings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is now settled, though formerly it was considered otherwise, that where an action is dismissed on motion for want of jurisdiction, the defendant is entitled to costs. Cary v. Daniels, 5 Met. 236 ; Jordan v. Dennis, 7 Met. 590; Hunt v. Hanover, 8 Met. 343. The only question in the present case is, whether the defendants having pleaded severally are entitled to several costs; and we think they are, having pleaded and moved severally. Mason v. Waite, 1 Pick. 456; Ewer v. Beard, 3 Pick. 64; West v. Brock, 3 Pick. 303 ; Fales v. Stone. 9 Met. 316.
[315]*315In taxing several costs for the defendants, however, it will be understood, that expenses incurred for the use of all, as depositions and the like, for the common benefit, can be taxed against the plaintiff but once only.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Mass. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-hastings-mass-1851.