Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. Boulton

4 Mass. 419
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 4 Mass. 419 (Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. Boulton) 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
Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. Boulton, 4 Mass. 419 (Mass. 1808).

Opinion

The action stood continued for advisement until this term, when

Parsons, C. J.,

observed that the five judges had conferred together upon his report, and upon consideration were all of opinion that the damages were rightly assessed by the jury.

The law upon this subject seems to be well settled. When the trespass is found by the jury to be committed severally by the defendants, who plead severally, the damages ought to be severed; but if the trespass be joint, the damages must be jointly assessed, although the defendants plead severally. [11 Co. 5, b, Heydon’s case.] In the case at bar, it appears from the report of the judge, and from the verdict, that there were three distinct trespasses charged in the declaration, but that each trespass was jointly committed by some of the defendants only. The damages for each trespass were rightly assessed jointly against those of the defendants who jointly committed it; and also the damages for the several trespasses were very properly severally assessed. Judgment must be rendered according to the verdict.

As to the costs in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to full costs, to be taxed jointly against all the defendants; for those who were defaulted have, by their default, confessed the trespass, and the others have been found guilty by the jury. The forms of entry in 2 Towns. Judg. 234, pl. 19, 235, pl. 22, and 2 Litt. Ent. 513, Fovargne vs. Hampson & Elam, are in point. The reason is, that the costs of suit are an entire thing, for the payment of which each of the defendants, who is guilty, is responsible.

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

Related

Hincks Coal Co. v. Milan
193 A. 243 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1937)
State ex rel. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co. v. St. Paul
34 So. 750 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
Westfield Gas & Milling Co. v. Abernathy
35 N.E. 399 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Everroad v. Gabbert
83 Ind. 489 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Chase v. Lovering
27 N.H. 295 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1853)
Eames v. Stevens
26 N.H. 117 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1852)
Bosworth v. Sturtevant
56 Mass. 392 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1848)
Allen v. Wheatley
3 Blackf. 332 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1834)
Kempton v. Cook
21 Mass. 305 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1826)
Cridland v. Floyd
6 Serg. & Rawle 412 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1821)
Sere v. Armitage
7 Mart. 394 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1821)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Mass. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proprietors-of-the-kennebeck-purchase-v-boulton-mass-1808.