¶1There seems to be no good reason why the defendant, who has been acquitted, and whose innocence is thus established, should not recover his costs. It is plain from the verdict, that the plaintiff had no cause of action against him ; as between him and the plaintiff, he is the prevailing party. The verdict has severed the two defendants as effectually as their pleading several pleas would have done. Let costs be taxed for the defendant, in whose behalf the motion was made.
13 Mass. 536
Brown v. Stearns
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1816
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1816-11-15
This was an action of the case for a malicious prosecution. The two defendants pleaded, jointly, not guilty. On the trial of that issue, the jury found one of them guilty, and the other not guilty. Cummings moved for costs for the defendant who had been acquitted, considering him as the prevailing party within the intent of the statute of 1784, c. 28, § 9 ; and he cited the cases of Hart vs. Fitzgerald, (1) and Galloway vs. Pitman fy al. (2)
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1833
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1816-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →