Collins v. City of Janesville

• Decision Date: 29 November 1901
• Citation: 111 Wis. 348,87 N.W. 1087
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: COLLINS v. CITY OF JANESVILLE.

111 Wis. 348

87 N.W. 1087

COLLINS

v.CITY OF JANESVILLE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 29, 1901.

On motion for retaxation of costs. Denied.

This case was decided September 24, 1901, 87 N. W. 241. No direction was given in the opinion as to the taxation of costs. Objection was made before the clerk to costs in appellant's favor for printing a considerable part of the “case” and for printing a reply brief. It was claimed that unnecessary matter was included in the “case” in violation of the rules on that subject, and that the reply brief, so called, was not such in fact and was entirely unnecessary. The objections were overruled. A motion was made for a retaxation of costs upon the ground that the clerk erred in deciding upon the objections mentioned.

MARSHALL, J.

No directions having been given to the clerk when the case was decided, as to whether the successful party should be allowed full costs for printing the “case” and costs for the reply brief, the clerk, under the rule established in Fairbank v. Newton, 48 Wis. 384, 4 N. W. 327, properly refused to pass upon the question of whether such “case” was made up in compliance with the court rules, or whether the reply brief was necessary. It was there said that, “In all cases where no direction is given to the clerk when the case is decided, in respect to the taxation for printing ‘cases' and briefs, he will tax for such disbursements according to the established rules;” and the court held that, in such circumstances, error in allowing for unnecessary printing is error of the court in not giving the clerk directions at the time of deciding the case, which cannot be reached by a motion for a review of the taxation of costs, but must be corrected, if at all, by a motion to correct the judgment, which, obviously, would be in the nature of a motion for a rehearing. The case to which we have referred is decisive of this question. The clerk followed what was impliedly the decision of the court as to allowing the successful party costs for printing. There are cases where the ruling of the clerk on objections to the allowance of disbursements for printing “cases” and briefs has been overruled on a motion for a retaxation of costs. See Baker v. City of Madison, 62 Wis. 152, 153, 22 N. W. 141, 583;Crouse v. Railroad Co., 102 Wis. 209, 211, 78 N. W. 446, 778. But in no such case was the question of whether the error was an error of the clerk or of the court suggested by counsel or in the...