TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. Emerson

John M. Davis v. Joseph Emerson

Davis v. Emerson, 17 Me. 64 (1840)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1840
Judges
Weston
Citations
17 Me. 64
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Where judgment has been recovered against an insolvent principal and his two sureties, and has been paid by one of them, he may recover of his co-surety one half of the costs as well as of the debt.
Summary
Assumpsit for money paid, laid out and expended. The plaintiff and defendant had been sureties for one Chadbourne, and a suit had been brought against them, and judgment obtained against the three. This execution had been paid by the plaintiff, Chadbourne being insolvent, and he now claimed to recover one half the amount of execution, debt and costs. The defendant objected to the allowance of any part of the costs. Emery J. instructed the jury, that the plaintiff had a right to contribution from the defendant for the costs so paid by him, as well as for the debt. The verdict was for the plaintiff and included one half the costs of suit. To this instruction of the Judge the defendant excepted, cited Henderson v. McDuffie, 5 N. H. Rep. 39; ST. R. 186; 11 Johns. R. 576; 8 East, 225; 2 T. R. 282.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Weston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was by Weston C. J.

A judgment was recovered against the plaintiff and the defendant, for which both were jointly and equally liable. The failure to pay, which occasioned the costs, was imputable to the defendant, as much as to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the execution, including the costs. As the defendant was liable for half the execution, to that extent, the plaintiff paid money for his use and benefit. The costs cannot be distinguished from the debt. Every equitable principle, which entitles the plaintiff to contribution for the one applies equally to the other.

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1859–1860: 11865–1866: 11881–1882: 11899–1900: 11915–1916: 11939–1940: 11959–1960: 118592026peak 1859 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Naylor237 F. 314 (8th Cir. 1916)
  2. Bragdon v. Worthley153 A.2d 627 (Me. 1959)
  3. Backus v. Coyne8 N.W. 694 (Mich. 1881)
  4. Briggs v. Boyd37 Vt. 534 (1865)
  5. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.192 So. 234 (La. 1939)
  6. Connolly v. Dolan46 A. 36 (R.I. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Bragdon v. Worthley153 A.2d 627 (Me. 1959)
  2. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.192 So. 234 (La. 1939)
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Naylor237 F. 314 (8th Cir. 1916)
  4. Connolly v. Dolan46 A. 36 (R.I. 1900)
  5. Backus v. Coyne8 N.W. 694 (Mich. 1881)
  6. Briggs v. Boyd37 Vt. 534 (1865)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list