Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Mass. 422

Caldwell v. Lovett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1816

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1816-10-15

Assumpsit by the'promissee against the maker of a promissory note. The note was described as dated the 23d of November, 1812, for $ 66-50, payable in six months with interest. There was also a count on an indebitatus assumpsit for labor ; and another count for money had and received. The cause was tried upon the general issue, before Putnam, J., at the last February term in this county.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1851

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1An attorney, once having indorsed an original writ, cannot afterwards be discharged, and another substituted in his place, without the consent of the defendant in the suit; for he has acquired a right to his name, as a security for his costs. It is true, in the' case before us, that the security of the defendant was not diminished * by the change. But he cannot be compelled to give up that which he already has. The admission of Mr. Fiske as a witness, he having indorsed the writ, and thereby become eventually liable to the costs of the suit, makes it necessary that a new trial should be granted.

¶2Motions to exchange indorsers of writs have been frequently overruled at nisi prius; and it is by no means desirable to increase the facility of admitting attorneys, who almost necessarily feel a bias in the suits they commence, to become witnesses in such causes.

¶3New trial granted

/13/mass/422 · .json · Public domain