Leighton v. Haynes
Leighton v. Haynes
Opinion of the Court
We think the plaintiff is entitled to have the cost of the survey included in the taxation of his costs of court. It has always been the practice in the courts of this State and Massachusetts to appoint a surveyor to run lines and make plans of lands when such á measure was deemed useful in the trial of a cause pending before them, or necessary in ordqr to ascertain the rights of the parties as to the matter in controversy. We deem the power to do so an incident to the general authority to hear and try the case, even without a special statute provision for it. It is in this respect like the power to order a view by the jury, or to compel the attendance of witnesses. Such a survey is frequently imperatively necessary to the intelligent determination of the rights of the parties in an action of trespass quare clausum. And when such a survey appears to have been important for the ready and proper elucidation of the case, we see no reason why the reasonable costs of making it should not be allowed to the party on whose motion it is made if he prevails, as well as the proper costs of procuring any other competent testimony.
The following opinion was submitted by
This is a question of costs. The action was trespass guare clausum. The defendant claimed title in himself, it being a question of lines. A surveyor was appointed and commissioned by the court, and made a survey of the premises in the presence of both parties. The action was referred,, and an award rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the costs of the survey, as taxed by the surveyor, should be included in his costs of court.. The defendant objects tha't this is a personal action, and that the costs of survey cannot be legally taxed.
Section 46, c. 104, R. S., provides that “ the court may appoint a surveyor to run lines and make plans of lands demanded in a real or mixed action on motion of either party.”
In Inhabitants of Wesley v. Sargent, 38 Maine, 324, the action was trespass to recover the value of a lot of mill-logs, alleged to have been cut within the corporate limits of the town of Wesley, and the defendants admitted their liability, if the logs were cut in Wesley. The question involved the true northerly line of a certain township. A surveyor was appointed, and a nonsuit was ordered by the court. A question having arisen as to the taxation of the costs of the survey, at nisi prius, Cutting, J., ordered that the whole expense of the survey should be borne by the plaintiffs, and the law court sustained this ruling.
Eor certain purposes, other actions than actions of ejectment, or writs of entry, are regarded as real actions when the title to real estate is in issue. An action of trespass de bonis asportatis has been held “ a real action ” within the meaning of the Massachusetts statute, allowing appeals in real actions from the court of common pleas to the supreme court. Blood v. Kemp, 4 Pick. 169. So, also, is the action quare clausum fregit a real action for such purpose. Davis v. Mason, 4 Pick. 158.
To restrict the authority of the court, in the appointment of a surveyor, to actions where land only, or land and something else are demanded, would be to give the statute a different construction from that which it has heretofore received, and to deprive the court, in a large class of cases, of an important instrumentality indicating, the truth, and determining the rights of the parties. We think that the legislature intended by the terms “ a real or mixed ac
Though the docket does not show upon whose motion the surveyor was appointed, the appointment will be presumed to have been made according to the statute. The conclusion is, that the plaintiff is entitled to have the cost of the survey included in the taxation of his costs of court.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles H. Leighton v. Thomas J. Haynes
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published