George v. Reed

104 Mass. 366
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

This was originally an action of contract, but was changed by amendment into an action of tort. The defendants answered severally, as they had a right to do; and if they prevailed, they were entitled to tax costs separately. West v. Brock, 3 Pick. 303. Fales v. Stone, 9 Met. 316. Davis v. Hastings, 8 Cush. 313. When the plaintiffs moved to change the action to a suit in equity, the judge who allowed the motion had authority to fix the terms, and has done so. All we can do is, to give a construction to his order. We cannot doubt that “ taxable costs ” includes separate costs to each defendant.

Taxation affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George v. Reed, 104 Mass. 366 (Mass. 1870).

104 Mass. 366 (George v. Reed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'Connell v. Bryant
126 Mass. 232 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)