George v. Reed

104 Mass. 366
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 Mass. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-reed-mass-1870.