Case ID: mass_7/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parsons, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lois Hagar versus Charles Weston.
    The Court, on a motion for a new trial, do not inquire into the consequence of the verdict as it may relate to costs.
    This was an action of the case in assumpsit, and was tried upon the general issue, October term, 1808, before Parker, J.; and a verdict found for the plaintiff, who, as appears from the judge’s report, objected thereto, and moved for a new trial, on the ground that the jury allowed interest, on two certain papers declared upon, only from the date of the writ; the plaintiff insisting that the interest ought to have been allowed from the date of those papers; and although the difference in the amount was small, it was yet important, because the jury having returned less than fifty dollars, the plaintiff was, by the statute of 1803, c. 155, § 5, subjected to the payment of the costs of this Court; whereas, had there been no mistake in the calculation, the verdict must have been for more than fifty dollars, and in that case the plaintiff would recover her full costs.
    The evidence, upon which the plaintiff rested her claim to a verdict, was, that the notes described in the several * counts were delivered to her by the defendant in dis- [*111 ] charge of a demand which she had against him, but she had failed to obtain payment of them without any loches on her part; and it was, testified in the case, that when the adjustment took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, the interest on the notes was calculated from their several dates, and that the defendant was allowed therefor out of the plaintiff’s demand against him ; and this testimony was unimpeached.
   The action standing continued nisi, the opinion of the Court was delivered at November term, in Suffolk, by

Bigelow for the plaintiff.

Ward for the defendant.

Parsons, C. J.

It was within the discretion of the jury to assess the damages. They allowed interest on the money received from the date of the writ; and as the facts are stated, it appears to us equitable that interest should have been allowed from the negotiation of the notes. This the jury have not done, probably through inattention. But we cannot say that the verdict is against law or against evidence.

The plaintiff’s counsel, when the verdict was returned, and before it was recorded, should have made inquiry whether the jury had considered this point or not. If they had, the Court would not have interfered; if they had not, the Court would have sent them out to consider it. But as this was not done, until after the verdict was made a record of the Court, it is now too late for us to interfere.

It appears that, had interest been allowed by the jury from the negotiation of the notes, the plaintiff would have been entitled to full costs, which she cannot now have. We do not inquire into the consequences of verdicts, as they may relate to costs. The costs are regulated by the verdict, and not the verdict by the costs.

The plaintiff can take nothing by her motion for a new trial