West v. Walworth
Supreme Court of Vermont
The only question in this case related to the taxation of costs. The plaintiff claimed to tax for a subpoena and the service of the same on one Bennett. The defendant objected on the ground that the subpoena was directed simply to any indifferent person, and not to the person serving it by name. It appeared that the plaintiff took out the subpoena and had it served on Bennett in good faith, believing his testimony to be material.
Read the full summary
The only question in this case related to the taxation of costs. The plaintiff claimed to tax for a subpoena and the service of the same on one Bennett. The defendant objected on the ground that the subpoena was directed simply to any indifferent person, and not to the person serving it by name. It appeared that the plaintiff took out the subpoena and had it served on Bennett in good faith, believing his testimony to be material. The witness did not however attend for the reason, as was stated by the counsel in the argument, that he was notified before the trial that the case would not be…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
This case comes before this court on exceptions taken to allowing costs to be taxed for a subpoena and the ser*168vice of it, which was directed to any indifferent person to server and return. While we acquiesce in the decision in Mattochs v. Wheaton, 10 Vt. 443, that a subpeena thus directed is so far' irregular as not to impose the duty on the witness, upon whom it is served, to attend in obedience to it, still we are not disposed to hold that fees for it and its service may not be taxed in thebill of costs, when taken by the party, and served in good faith. Judge Williams, in Mattochs v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Randolph v. Town of BraintreeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. WilburSupreme Court of Vermont · 1862
- Thomas v. GravesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916