Case ID: sc_37/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice McGowan,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 3016.
    Bogan v. Sprott. Stewart v. Same.
    April Term, 1892.
    
      Grayclon & Graydon, for appellant.
    
      Benet & Gasón, contra.
    The court said: “All the exceptions but the fifth, in different forms, complain of alleged insufficiency of the proof. That is a matter of fact, which, in a law case, cannot be reviewed by this court, especially where the trial justice and the Circuit Judge concurred.
    
      “As to exception 5: 'Because it was error in the presiding judge to order judgment to be entered up in two cases, and for two sets of costs, when the eases were tried together.’ It is true that the amounts involved in these cases were small, but there was no pretence of a joint interest. Each party owned his little account, and brought his own individual action for it. The cases were tried together merely as a matter of convenience. The cases were not thereby consolidated, but still preserved their identity. Judge Wallace had no right to consolidate the two cases, and render one judgment for the aggregate amount of both, and, if he had done so, the judgment might have been set aside as illegal and void.”
    Judgment affirmed.
    October 4, 1892.
   Opinion by

Me. Justice McGowan,

These were two separate • actions to recover amounts due on open accounts for labor performed. Judgment was separately rendered by the trial justice in favor of the two plaintiffs, and, on appeal to the Circuit Court, where the two cases were again heard together, judgment was ordered severally to each plaintiff, with costs to each. Defendant appealed.