Matthews v. Vining
This text of 38 Mass. 335 (Matthews v. Vining) 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
But it was resolved by the Court, that the plaintiff was entitled to costs against the defaulted defendants, only to the time of the default. [See Revised Stat. c. 121, § 34.] And the Court remarked, that in the case of the Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. Boulton, the plaintiffs recovered judgment against all the defendants ; but that here White, against whom the plaintiff discontinued, was the prevailing party, and the effect of the proceedings was to disjoin the defendants and to show that White ought not to have beén sued. And in respect to Wells et al. v. Banister et al. & Tr., where the plaintiffs recovered costs against the defendants, who had been defaulted, to. the time when the trustee was discharged, they said the plaintiffs, were pursuing the trustee in order to enforce their remedy against the principal defendants, and to which they were compelled by the neglect of the principal defendants to pay the debt.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
38 Mass. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-vining-mass-1838.