Case Name: John L. Leonard vs. P. T. O'Reilley
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1884-04-01
Citations: 137 Mass. 138
Docket Number: 
Parties: John L. Leonard vs. P. T. O’Reilley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
John L. Leonard vs. P. T. O’Reilley.
Suffolk.
March 26.
April 1, 1884.
Devens & Colburn, JJ., absent.
Under the St. of 1882, c. 264, § 1, it is within the discretion of the presiding judge, if no question in an action is carried to the full bench of this court, to allow to the party recovering costs, in addition to the three term fees given by the statute, such number of term fees as is deemed just.
Appeal from a taxation of costs. The record showed the following facts:
The writ in this case was entered at July term 1881 of the Superior Court. The case was continued from term to term until January term 1884, when it was tried by the court without a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. After-wards, upon motion of the plaintiff, and, after hearing the parties, for cause shown, the court ordered that the plaintiff be allowed, as part of his costs, a term fee for each and every one of the eleven terms that the case had been in court; the defendant contending that, under the St. of 1882, c. 264, § 1, the Superior Court could allow only three term fees, the case never having been before the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court on any question therein. After judgment, the clerk taxed the plaintiff’s costs, and, against the defendant’s objection, allowed the plaintiff eleven term fees, as ordered by the court. The court affirmed the clerk’s taxation of costs, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendant appealed to this court.
C. F. Donnelly, for the defendant.
S. A. B. Abbott, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The St. of 1882, c. 264, § 1, provides that " parties recovering costs in civil actions in the Supreme Judicial Court or in the Superior Court, shall be allowed but three term fees in any action unless allowed by order of the court; but if the action or any question therein is carried to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court, two additional term fees may be allowed."
The meaning of this statute seems to us to be clear. If no question in a case is carried to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court, the clerk, who is the officer required by law to tax the costs, is to allow only three term fees, unless the court in its discretion orders more to be taxed. If any question is carried to the full bench, the clerk is to allow two more term fees. In either event, it is left to the discretion of the court to allow and order to be taxed such number of term fees in addition as is deemed just. Taxation affirmed.