Adams Express Co. v. Welborn, No. 8473.
| Docket Nº | No. 8473. |
| Citation | 59 Ind.App. 330, 109 N.E. 420 |
| Case Date | June 23, 1915 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
59 Ind.App. 330
109 N.E. 420
ADAMS EXPRESS CO. et al.
v.
WELBORN.
No. 8473.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.
June 23, 1915.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gibson County; Herdis C. Clements, Judge.
Action by Ernest P. Welborn against the Adams Express Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed. The case was reversed (see 108 N. E. 163) and the plaintiff moves to retax costs and strike out certain costs procured by the defendants against him. Motion to retax granted.
James B Gamble, of Princeton, for appellants. Veneman & Welborn, of Evansville, and O. M. Welborn, of Princeton, for appellee.
IBACH, P. J.
Motion by appellee to retax costs and strike out certain costs procured by appellants against appellee. The items of cost in controversy amount to $55.50, $20.50 paid by appellant to the clerk of the trial court for the transcript, and $35 paid to the stenographer for a transcript of the evidence, incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
[1] It is first contended by appellee that these items of costs should be stricken out for the reason that no claim therefor was made or presented to the court or the clerk of the court until long after the decision of the court was rendered. The decision of this court was made on January 22, 1915, and the claim was first made by appellant that these costs should be taxed on March 8, 1915, at which time appellants procured the said fees to be taxed against appellee for the benefit of appellants, appellee having previously remitted a portion of the judgment. The statute authorizes the collection of such fees as a part of the costs of this court. Section 707, Burns 1914. Such items of cost are to be recovered by the successful appellant. Wright v. Wilson, 98 Ind. 112;Monnett v. Hemphill, 110 Ind. 299, 11 N. E. 230. There is nothing in the statute which provides either the time or the manner of taxation of such costs, but certainly this may be done while the cause is still pending, and within the time allowed for filing a petition for rehearing.
[2] It is further urged that the transcript of the evidence was unnecessary to the relief which was granted appellants, or the court decided that the evidence as to the liability of appellants was sufficient, and decided the questions dependent on the evidence in appellee's favor, and therefore appellants should pay the costs of the transcript of the evidence. This case was neither affirmed in whole, or reversed in whole. In such a case as this the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Markle, No. 22604.
...the complaint more specific. Board v. State, 179 Ind. 644, 102 N. E. 97;Adams Express Co. v. Welborn, 59 Ind. App. 330, 108 N. E. 163, 109 N. E. 420;Rock Oil Co. v. Brumbaugh, 59 Ind. App. 640, 108 N. E. 260. [1][2][3] The second error, the overruling of appellant's demurrer to the complain......
-
McHie v. McHie, No. 15928.
...on her motion to make the amended complaint more specific. Adams Express Company et al. v. Welborn, 1915, 59 Ind.App. 330, 108 N.E. 163, 109 N.E. 420. [3] Since the court found the facts specially and stated its conclusions of law thereon, the overruling of appellant's demurrer to appellee'......
-
Iterman v. Baker, No. 15501.
...this motion. This action of the court was not reversible error. Adams Express Co. v. Welborn (1915) 59 Ind.App. 330, 108 N.E. 163, 109 N.E. 420. [3][4][5][6] Appellants insist that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it is contrary to law. In this appeal......
-
American Coal Mining Co. v. Lewis , No. 10927.
...102 N. E. 97;Kinmore v. Cresse (1913) 53 Ind. App. 693, 102 N. E. 403;Adams, etc., Co. v. Welborn (1915) 59 Ind. App. 330, 108 N. E. 163, 109 N. E. 420. [2] Appellant has waived any error based on the action of the court in overruling the second motion named by failing to make any reference......
-
Iterman v. Baker, 15501.
...this motion. This action of the court was not reversible error. Adams Express Co. v. Welborn (1915) 59 Ind.App. 330, 108 N.E. 163, 109 N.E. 420. [3][4][5][6] Appellants insist that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it is contrary to law. In this appeal......
-
McHie v. McHie, 15928.
...rights by the courts ruling on her motion to make the amended complaint more specific. Adams Express Company et al. v. Welborn, 1915, 59 Ind.App. 330, 108 N.E. 163, 109 N.E. 420. [3] Since the court found the facts specially and stated its conclusions of law thereon, the overruling of appel......
-
American Coal Mining Co. v. Lewis , 10927.
...ex rel. (1913) 179 Ind. 644, 102 N. E. 97;Kinmore v. Cresse (1913) 53 Ind. App. 693, 102 N. E. 403;Adams, etc., Co. v. Welborn (1915) 59 Ind. App. 330, 108 N. E. 163, 109 N. E. 420. [2] Appellant has waived any error based on the action of the court in overruling the second motion named by ......
-
American Coal Mining Company v. Lewis, 10,927
...ex rel. (1913), 179 Ind. 644, 102 N.E. 97; Kinmore v. Cresse (1913), 53 Ind.App. 693, 102 N.E. 403; Adams Express Co. v. Welborn (1915), 59 Ind.App. 330, 108 N.E. 163, 109 N.E. 420. Appellant has waived any error based on the action of the court in overruling the second motion named, by fai......