Huntress v. Town of Epsom
| Decision Date | 20 March 1883 |
| Citation | 15 F. 732 |
| Parties | HUNTRESS v. TOWN OF EPSOM. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Copeland & Edgerly and Wallace Hackett, for plaintiff.
Wm. L Foster, Thomas J. Smith, and John Y. Mugridge, for defendant.
This was an action by the plaintiff against the town, for damages to himself and team from a defect in a highway which the town was under obligation to keep in reasonable repair. There were two trials. On the first the jury disagreed; at the second there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. At each of these trials the jury, upon motion of the defendant, was sent out by the court, under the direction of the marshal, to view the highway where the accident happened, and where the damage was sustained by the plaintiff.
The statute of New Hampshire provides (chapter 231, Secs. 17, 18 p. 537, Gen. Laws) that--
'In trials of actions involving questions of right to real estate, or in which the examination of places or objects may aid the jury in understanding the testimony, the court, on motion of either party, may, in their discretion, direct a view of the premises by the jury, under such rules as they may prescribe. ' 'The cost of such view shall be subject to adjudication as to the whole or any part thereof as the court may deem equitable.'
The statute of the United States provides, (section 914, p. 174 Rev. St., 2d Ed. 1878:)
'The practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in civil causes, other than equity and admiralty causes, in the circuit or district courts, shall conform as near as may be to the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the state within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding.'
The defendant claimed to recover, as costs from the plaintiff the expenses paid out by the town in conveying the jury, in each of the trials, to the place of view, and in returning them to the court; and also a further sum for the board and lodging of the jurors upon the last view, which detained them 'over night.' It is conceded that there is no statute of the United States that provides for the allowance of such an expenditure as costs; and in Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fisher, 285, it was held that no costs could be recovered by the prevailing party but the legal taxed costs. The same decision was substantially made in Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363. But this rigid rule has not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Sawyer Bros.
...Fed. Cas. No. 18284). After 1853 the same has been repeatedly decided. Ethridge v. Jackson, 2 Sawy. 598, Fed. Cas. No. 4541; Huntress v. Epsom (C. C.) 15 F. 732; Shreve v. Cheesman, 69 F. 785 (C. C. A. 8); Primrose v. Fenno (C. C.) 113 F. 375; Scatcherd v. Love, 166 F. 53 (C. C. A. 6); Ex p......
-
Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. Co.
... ... should not be allowed. In Huntress v. Town of Epsom, ... 15 F. 732, it was held by Judge CLARK, that, where there had ... been two ... ...
-
McLean v. Clark
...of the court that there can be said to have been a final hearing which warrants the taxation of a docket fee. See, also, Huntress v. Epsom, 15 F. 732. different rule has apparently been adopted in one or two of the more recent decisions in New York. In these cases the definition of the word......
-
Goodyear v. Sawyer
...'a final hearing,' but the court cited Hayford v. Griffiths, supra, somewhat approvingly. In Strafer v. Carr, 6 F. 466, and in Huntress v. Epsom, 15 F. 732, it was held that there was more than one 'trial before a jury' only one docket fee is taxable, because, as was said by Judge SWING, un......