Woolsey v. O'Brien
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2012, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August (Supreme Court of the United States 1981)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn. 1901)
- United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC (Minn. 2012)
- Wangensteen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1944)
- Brown v. Fitcher (Minn. 1903)
- McClure v. Johnson (Okla. 1901)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In the court below, after issue joined, the defendants, under the statute, served a written offer upon plaintiffs to allow judgment to be taken against them for a specified sum and costs. The offer was not accepted, and, upon a trial, the plaintiffs recovered less than the sum specified in the offer. By reason of thi-s the defendants objected to the allowance of any costs or disbursements to plaintiffs, and claimed that they were entitled to costs and disbursements. The clerk of the district court sustained defendants in their objections, and, upon an appeal to the court, an order was made that plaintiffs recover disbursements in the action, and that defendants
The question in the case is, does the clause in Gen. St. c. 66, § 241, providing that, in case of an offer by defendant to allow judgment to be taken for a specified sum and costs, not accepted by plaintiff, ‘ ‘ if the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, he cannot recover costs, but must pay costs to the defendant,” use the words “ costs ” in the limited sense in which it is used in chapter 67 ? That chapter provides for the allowance of certain fixed sums, which it denominates costs, and for other indefinite sums, which it denominates disbursements, and preserves these designations throughout; but in other parts of the statutes the term costs is used, unquestionably, to indicate both what are called costs, in chapter 67, and disbursements. Thus, in chapter 66, sections 159, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, regulating garnishee proceedings, there can be no doubt of the intention of the legislature to include disbursements, although only the word costs is used. Indeed, in looking-through the statutes Avhere the term costs is used, in most instances, except in chapter 67, it evidently includes disbursements ; and when avc consider what Avas the evident purpose of the legislature in chapter 66, section 241, there can be little doubt that the term costs, Avhcnever in that section employed, Avas meant to include all allowances Avhich may be made to a party to reimburse him for expenses and trouble in an action. The purpose of the section Av-as to enable a defendant to avoid further expenses of litigation. A statute the object of Avhich, is to enable, parties to avoid the cost of litigation is a beneficial one, and ought to bo liberally construed in furtherance of its object. To accomplish this the party may offer to permit judgment to bo taken against him for a specified sum and costs — that is, all the allowances to Avhich the plaintiff is entitled up to the time his offer is accepted or deemed Avithdniwn; and, to enable plaintiff, in case of such an offer, to secure those
The judgment is revex-sed, axxd it will be entered ixx the coux’t below for the verdict, and with costs axxd disbursements to defendants.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.