Davis v. Adams
Decision Date | 29 May 1901 |
Docket Number | 11,829. |
Citation | 109 F. 271 |
Parties | DAVIS v. ADAMS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
This action was prosecuted by the libelant in forma pauperis under the act of July 20, 1892 (27 Stat. 252). That act provides:
The libelant recovered judgment for the sum of $40.80, without costs, other than those incurred subsequent to and including the filing of the amended libel. The amount of the judgment has been paid into the registry of the court. The present motion, which is in writing, incorrectly recites that the clerk of this court 'now holds said judgment money for costs in said cause incurred previous to the amending of said libel,' and the court is asked to make an order directing him to pay said money over to the libelant. The money paid in satisfaction of the judgment is not in possession of the clerk, but is in the registry of the court, and can only be withdrawn by an order signed by the judge, and 'entered and certified of record by the clerk. ' Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 996.
The question involved in the motion relates to the right of libelant to withdraw from the registry of the court the money recovered in this action, without payment of the fees of the clerk for filing libel, issuing monition, etc., at the request of libelant, prior to the filing of the amended libel. In my opinion, the libelant has no such right. The statute above referred to does not take away from the clerk in actions prosecuted thereunder, the right to charge and recover for his services the same fees as are allowed in actions not prosecuted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perkins v. Cingliano
...Greyhound Corporation, 192 F. Supp. 903 (D.Md.1959). The rule is the same elsewhere. See 20 C.J.S. Costs § 146 p. 385, and Davis v. Adams, 109 F. 271 (N.D.Cal.1901), interpreting the predecessor From this judgment of the District Court Perkins now wishes to prosecute an appeal to this court......