Case Name: David Lawrence versus Samuel Ford
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1857
Citations: 44 Me. 427
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Lawrence versus Samuel Ford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 427–433

Head Matter:
David Lawrence versus Samuel Ford.
Quarter costs only can be taxed for the plaintiff, when it appears on the rendition of judgmont that the action should have been originally brought before a justice of the peace.
Whether an action should have been brought before a justice of the peace, is to be determined ordinarily by the amount of the judgment.
Where the defendant filed an account in get-off, and thereafter offered to be defaulted for a sum less than twenty dollars, the plaintiff, in order to recover full costs, should have it appear that his acceptance of the offer was by reason of a reduction of his judgment, in consequence of the account filed in set-off.
Exceptions were taken to the ruling of Hathaway, J., in this case, which is Assumpsit on an account annexed in a bill of particulars to the writ, for $36.80. On the first day of the term, the defendant filed his account in set-off, amounting to $24.92, a bill of particulars of which was ordered and filed in vacation. On the third day of the term the defendant offered to be defaulted for $1.9, debt and legal costs, which was by the plaintiff accepted, and the defendant defaulted.
The judge decided and ruled as matter of law, that judgment being for less than $20, the plaintiff was entitled to only one fourth of the damages as costs.
To which ruling and decision the plaintiff excepted.
W. Hubbard, counsel for the plaintiff, excepting, submits :
1st. The action was properly brought into this court;
2d. The defendant, having filed his account in set off, and not having withdrawn it, when he made his offer of default, is presumed to have made his offer for the balance due from him;
3d. Therefore it is equivalent to a finding by jury, and their certificates requisite to the plaintiff’s recovery of full costs.
H. Ingalls, counsel for the defendant.
This is an action upon an account annexed, and the defendant filed an account in offset. At the second term the defendant offered to be defaulted for $19, and legal costs, which offer was accepted by the plaintiff, and the defendant defaulted for that sum as damages. The court allowed one quarter part of that sum as costs. The plaintiff claimed full costs, and excepted to the ruling' of the presiding judge as to costs.
I. By the R. S., ch. 151, s. 13-, it is provided, that “ if, in any action originally brought before the Supreme Judicial Court or any District .Court, it shall appear, on the rendition of judgment, that the action should have been originally brought before a justice of the peace or the judge of any municipal or police court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover for costs more than one quarter- of the amount of debt so recovered.”
By this statute it must appear, “on the rendition of judgment,” when the action should have been commenced. In this case the only evidence upon this matter before the court, was the amount of damages recovered by the plaintiff. It did not appear whether anything was due upon the account in offset or not, or that there was more than the sum of $19’ due upon the plaintiff’s account. The defendant offers $19, and the plaintiff accepts it. That is the whole case. Nothing further appears “on the rendition of judgment.” Account in offset filed is not proof of it.
2. The only exception in actions of assumpsit as to costs, in case the damages are less than $20, is in ch. 115, s. 99. Full costs can be allowed in such cases only where “ the jury shall certify in their verdict that the damages were reduced as low as that sum by means of the amount allowed by them on account of said set-off, and as due upon it.” In this case there was no such certificate by the jury or any such adjudication by the court, even if that would avail.
3. The earlier decisions in Massachusetts and this state, in relation to costs in such cases, are inapplicable to this case, as the two sections of the Revised Statutes, above referred to, establish an entirely different rule as to costs in such cases. Statute of 1821, ch. 59, s. 20. Thompson v. Tompson, 31 Maine R., 120, is a decision under the Revised Statutes, and is a case in point.
1 4. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction of all actions, (with certain exceptions, of which this is not one,) in which the damages do not exceed $20. The amount due the plaintiff in this case was $19. The action should, therefore, have been commenced before a justice of the peace. R. S., ch. 116, s. 1.

Opinion:
May, J.
By the R. S., ch. 151, s. 13, quarter costs only can be taxed for the plaintiff, when it appears on the rendition of judgment, that the action should have been originally brought before a justice of the peaee. Whether an action ought to have been so brought, is ordinarily to be determined by the amount of the judgment. If, as .in this case, that amount does not exceed twenty dollars, the plaintiff's costs can be only one quarter part as much as his debt or damage, unless a different rule of taxation is authorized by some other statute.
It is contended that the provisions of the R. S., ch. 115, s. 99, apply to this suit. That section provides, that "in actions on contract, in which an account is filed in set-off, although the damages found for the plaintiff shall not exceed twenty dollars, he shall be entitled to full costs, provided the jury shall certify in their verdict that the damages were reduced as low as that sum, by means of the amount allowed by them on account of said set-off, and as due upon it. We do not think that the facts in this case bring it within the provisions of this statute. There is nothing which satisfactorily shows that the judgment was reduced below twenty dollars, by means of anything dne to the defendant upon the account in set-off. We do not mean, however, to decide that the reason of such reduction must in all cases appear from the certificate of the jury. It may be shown by the agreement of the parties, or by the adjudication of the court, when the court, instead of the jury, by the express or implied consent of the parties, are called upon to assess the damages. The fact must appear in some way; otherwise quarter costs only can be allowed.
From the exceptions in this case, it appears that the defendant filed his account in set-off; and offered to be defaulted for a sum less than twenty dollars; but it does not appear, either from the offer, or its acceptance, or in any other way, that the account in set-off was the reason why no more was offered, or why the offer was accepted. In cases such as this, the plaintiff, if he wishes to recover full costs, should be careful to have it appear upon the docket, that his acceptance of the offer was upon the ground or condition that his judgment should be regarded as being reduced to the amount accepted, by reason of the amount due to the defendant upon his account filed in set-off. This not having been done, the exceptions must be overruled.
Exceptions overruled.