McArthur v. Starrett
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The facts in the ease were agreed by the parties. This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment for costs recovered by defendant in error against the plaintiffs, at the March term of the court, 1856, and taxed by the clerk. Plea is “ in nullo esi erratum.”
Read the full summary
The facts in the ease were agreed by the parties. This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment for costs recovered by defendant in error against the plaintiffs, at the March term of the court, 1856, and taxed by the clerk. Plea is “ in nullo esi erratum.” The defendant in error formerly resided in Augusta, Maine, but had removed to Richmond, Virginia, and was temporarily in said Augusta at the time of the service of the original writ upon him, and traveled from said Richmond to Augusta for the purpose of attending the trial, as stated in his certificate on file. The witness Hammington,…
1DissentRice, J.
The defendant now resides in Richmond, Ya. He formerly resided in Augusta, Maine, and was temporarily in that place when the writ in the former action was served upon him. The original action was continued several times before it came to trial. The defendant’s attorney resides in Augusta. For three terms of court, while the original action was pending, cost was taxed for the defendant, and allowed by the clerk, for travel from Richmond, Virginia., to Augusta, from which place he certified that he actually traveled to attend court in that action.
Fees were also taxed and allowed the defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chambers v. KeeneCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Inches v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Field v. First Massachusetts Turnpike Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809