Spaulding v. Yeaton

• Decision Date: 12 October 1889
• Citation: 82 Me. 92,19 A. 156
• Parties: SPAULDING v. YEATON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 156

82 Me. 92

SPAULDING

v. YEATON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 12, 1889.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Kennebec county.

Action of debt by John F. Spaulding against Freeman G. Yeaton.

F. E. Southard, for plaintiff. S. & L. Titcomb, for defendant.

VIRGIN, J. By serving a civil process before he had given the official bond required of him as constable, the defendant "forfeited not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars to the prosecutor." Rev. St. c. 80, § 50.

At the trial of the plaintiff's action of debt for the recovery of the forfeiture, commenced and tried in the superior court, the plaintiff's counsel in his argument to the jury expressly claimed a verdict for only $20; and the jury concurred, and returned their verdict for that sum. Four days thereafter, when the plaintiff taxed his bill of cost, the judge restricted his taxation to one-quarter part of the verdict, and the plaintiff alleged exception. The question, therefore, is: Is the plaintiff entitled to more than quarter costs, if in the trial of his action of debt, commenced in a superior court to recover under a penal statute "not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars" forfeited to the prosecutor, the jury returns a verdict for only twenty dollars? The decision of this question depends upon a proper construction of two companion statutory provisions.

1. In actions commenced in the supreme judicial or a superior court, except those by or against towns for the support of paupers, if it appears on the rendition of judgment that the action should have been commenced before a municipal or police court or a trial justice, the plaintiff recovers for costs only one-quarter part of his debt or damages. Rev. St. c. 82, § 120.

No provision therein contained negatives the jurisdiction of the supreme or superior court of actions commenced therein, notwithstanding they properly "should have been commenced before" one of the inferior tribunals specified. On the contrary, the "rendition of judgment" in such actions is permitted when the ad damnum is more than $20. Cole v. Hayes, 78 Me. 539, 7 Atl. Rep. 391. The particular object of the provision which restricts the plaintiff's costs in certain actions to a sum equal to one-quarter of his debt or damage recovered, is to discourage a plaintiff from commencing them in the higher courts, when a less expensive and convenient tribunal is open to him. Chesley v. Brown, 11 Me. 143, 149; Burnham v. Ross, 47 Me. 460, and note by KENT, J.

The language of the original provision (1 Laws 1821, c. 59, § 30) was: "If, upon any action originally brought before the circuit court of common pleas, judgment shall be recovered for no more than twenty dollars debt or damage, * * * the plaintiff shall be entitled for his costs to no more than one quarter part," etc. Subsequently the court, by what was deemed a "fair and consistent construction" of the phrase "any action," restrained its generality so as not to include certain actions wherein title to real...