O'Connell v. Bryant

Decided January 28, 1879

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1879-01-28

Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiffs close in Lexington. The defendants, appearing by the same attorney, filed several answers, each containing: 1. A denial of the plaintiff’s allegations. 2. A justification of the defendant’s acts, as done as, or under the authority of, a surveyor of highways of Lexington within the limits of the public highways in that town, and for the purpose of repairing them. 3. A license from the plaintiff. The verdict was for the defendants.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1941

2 state decisions

Relies on New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Inhabitants of Northampton · Upton v. Pratt · George v. Reed

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-01-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1By the well settled practice, two persons sued together in tort, who sever in their answers, although they appear by the same attorney, are to be treated as separate parties, and each of them, if he prevails, is entitled to separate costs, except for money paid out for expenses by the two jointly. Gen. Sts. c. 156, § 1. Mason v. Waite, 1 Pick. 452. Fales v. Stone, 9 Met. 316. George v. Reed, 104 Mass. 366. Upton v. Pratt, 106 Mass. 344. And the defendants, having prevailed upon this appeal, are entitled also to the costs thereof. Gen. Sts. o. 156, § 26. New Haven Northampton Co. v. Northampton, 102 Mass. 116, 126.

¶2Taxation affirmed, with costs of appeal.