George v. Reed
This text of 104 Mass. 366 (George v. Reed) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 Mass. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-reed-mass-1870.