
    Benjamin S. Rice, Plaintiff in Review and original Plaintiff, versus Robert Townsend.
    Where a declaration contained two counts for two several causes of action, and on one trial the plaintiff had obtained a verdict on one count, and on the second trial, on the appeal, had a verdict on the other, which was for a much less sum than tire sum for which the first verdict was returned, he was holden entitled to a review of the action.
    The original action was assumpsit, the declaration containing two counts. In the first count the plaintiff demanded 13 dollars, tor certain work and labor ; and in the second 360 dollars, for so much money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use.
    On the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the second count, and for the defendant on the first; and at the trial in this Court a verdict was found for the plaintiff on the first count for 13 dollars 38 cents, and for the defendant oil the second count. Upon this last verdict the plaintiff brought this writ of review; which the defendant now moved the Court to quash, on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled, by the statute, to a writ of review, not having had a verdict returned against him in the action.
    The motion was supported by Smith and Lincoln, who contended that the right of review was limited to a party who had had one verdict against him.  The legislature did not intend to give a privilege to one party in an action denied to another. Yet it was clear that the defendant in. this case, having had two'verdicts against him, was not entitled to a review. That the Court will quash the writ on motion, if the plaintiff is not entitled to it, was settled in the case of Hall vs. Wolcott. 
       If the plaintiff is entitled to his review, it will follow that every plaintiff, dissatisfied with the damages, as assessed by the jury, may have a review as of right.
    * T. and A. Bigelow, for the plaintiff,
    argued that his case was substantially within the equity of the statute of 1786; and if it should be thought not within its letter, the Court could sustain the writ under the equitable powers given by the statute of 1788, c. 11. The plaintiff might have instituted two actions for the two several causes which are united in this, subject to paying costs in one of them. Had he done so, and had the verdicts been as they have been, he would, without an) question, have been entitled to a review in each action. There has been, in effect, only one verdict against the plaintiff on each of the causes of action.
    
      
      
        Stat. 1786, c. 66, § 1.
    
    
      
      1 10 Mass. Rep. 218.
    
   Per Cariara.

The motion is overruled, and the writ of review is sustained.  