TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wightman v. Hastings

Thomas Wightman versus Thomas Hastings, Jun.

Wightman v. Hastings, 4 Mass. 244 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1808
Citations
4 Mass. 244
Headnotes
The provision of the statute of 1803, c. 155, § 5, respecting costs, extends to actions brought up on demurrer, as well aé those in which there has been a verdict in the court below.
Summary
This was an action of the case upon a promissory note. ' The plaintiff alleged his damage at 200 dollars. At the court below, the defendant pleaded non assumpsit, to which the plaintiff demurred, reserving liberty to waive his demurrer, and join the issue tendered upon the appeal. The defendant joined in demurrer, agreeing to the reservation. Upon the appeal, the plaintiff withdrew his demurrer, and joined the issue tendered below. Upon trial of this issue before Parker, J., at the last November term, the jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at 23 dollars 25 cents. Upon this verdict, B. Whitman claimed judgment for full costs for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the provisions of the statute of 1803, c. 155, 5, which enacts that if any action upon simple contract, which shall be brought to this Court by the plaintiff’s appealing, and in which the plaintiff shall demand, but shall not, by the judgment of this Court, recover more than fifty dollars, the defendant shall recover his costs arising after the appeal. And Whitman suggested that the intention of the legislature was to prevent appeals from the Common Pleas in small causes after a trial, that trials might not be unnecessarily multiplied. These appeals from a judgment on demurrer stand on different ground, and amount to an agreement of the parties to give a jurisdiction to this Court.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam, (absente Parsons, C. J.) The words of the statute are too clear to leave a doubt. It is absurd to say that the parties may by their agreement evade a positive and very wholesome pro vision of a statute. The case is clearly within the provision, and to decide otherwise would be to make law, not to explain and administer it. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs before the appeal and the defendant is entitled to his costs since the appeal.

How later courts describe this case

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

1812–1813: 11820–1821: 21840–1841: 11892–1893: 118122026peak 1820 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Woodworth v. President, Directors, & Co. of the Bank of America19 Johns. 391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1821)
  2. Ransom v. McCurley140 Ill. 626 (1892)
  3. Lakeman v. Morse9 Mass. 126 (1812)
  4. Maine Bank v. Smith18 Me. 99 (1841)
  5. Inhabitants of Boston v. Inhabitants of York1 Me. 406 (1821)

Most recent

  1. Ransom v. McCurley140 Ill. 626 (1892)
  2. Maine Bank v. Smith18 Me. 99 (1841)
  3. Inhabitants of Boston v. Inhabitants of York1 Me. 406 (1821)
  4. Woodworth v. President, Directors, & Co. of the Bank of America19 Johns. 391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1821)
  5. Lakeman v. Morse9 Mass. 126 (1812)

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