Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Mass. 79

Bacon v. Crandon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1833

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1833-10-15

This was an action of assumpsit, brought originally before a justice of the peace, by Bacon against one Thomas. It was carried up to the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Plymouth at December term 1831, and was then, by agreement of the parties, referred under a rule of court. Before the April term 1832, Thomas died, and his death was suggested upon the record, and the action was continued at that and the succeeding term, for his administrator to come in and defend.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1892

1 district ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The plaintiff alleged that this judgment was erroneous, because the appointment of the referee was revoked by the death of Thomas before the rule of submission came into the hands of the referee. But it was resolved that the administrator took up the case where the deceased left it; that the reference with the consent of the parties, was a substitute for *80a trial by jury, and it became the act of the court ; and there fore that the authority of the referee was not revoked by the death of Thomas : and further, that the right of revocation, if any had existed, had been waived by the parties.

Eddy, for the plaintiff in error.C. J. Holmes, for the defendant in error.

¶2It was also assigned for error, that judgment was rendered that the defendant recover his costs, whereas judgment should have been rendered that the plaintiff recover his damage above mentioned and costs of suit. But per Curiam. This objection proceeds on the supposition that a referee has no authority to award damages to one party and costs to the other. But this ground cannot be supported. As a general rule the prevailing party recovers costs; but there may be circumstances which would render this inequitable. A plain tiff may sue on two demands, one of which is uncontested, and the whole subject matter upon which costs have arisen, may be determined in favor of the defendant, and in such a case the referee may award that the plaintiff, although he recovers damages, shall nevertheless pay costs. See Nelson v. Andrews, 2 Mass. R. 164.

¶3It was further assigned for error, that costs were taxed for the travel and attendance of Thomas after his death and before the appointment or appearance of his administrator; but it was considered that the administrator took up the case by relation, from the death of Thomas, and that these costs were rightly taxed. It was also objected, that costs were taxed for the travel and attendance of witnesses, of whose travel and attendance no certificate had been filed ; and this was held by the Court to be erroneous.

¶4The judgment, therefore, was reversed in part, namely, so far as respects the costs taxed for witnesses who did not certify their travel and attendance, and was affirmed as to the residue.

/32/mass/79 · .json · Public domain