Hanna v. Buford
| Decision Date | 24 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 1989.,1989. |
| Citation | 194 S.W. 517 |
| Parties | HANNA v. BUFORD. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Reynolds County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.
Action by W. P. Hanna against J. H. Buford. From a judgment sustaining a motion to tax costs, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
John H. Keith, of Ironton, for appellant. C. M. Buford, of Ellington, Arthur T. Brewster, of Poplar Bluff, Stuart L. Clark, of Van Buren, and J. B. Daniel, of Piedmont, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Reynolds county sustaining a motion to tax costs. A statement of the essential facts may be summarized as follows: A suit was pending between these parties in the circuit court of Reynolds county in which a change of venue was granted at the November term, 1915, transferring the cause to the circuit court of Carter county. At the May term, 1916, of the circuit court of Reynolds county the motion here involved was filed and continued until the November term, 1916, when it was sustained, which was after final judgment had been rendered in the circuit court of Carter county in the suit. The costs of preparing the transcript and transfer of the case were paid by the appellant when the change of venue was granted, and the costs taxed by the court on the motion in this proceeding were such as had accrued and been made in the cause prior to the application for a change of venue. The theory of the circuit court in sustaining the motion to tax these costs against the appellant was that the costs of securing the attendance of witnesses at the circuit court of Reynolds county prior to the application for a change of venue were such as fell within the provision of section 1936, R. S. 1909, requiring the petitioner for a change of venue to pay "all the costs and expenses attending any such change of venue."
We cannot lend our assent to this judgment for two reasons. It is an elementary rule and a statutory injunction that "words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense." Section 8057, R. S. 1909. The ordinary sense of the provision that the petitioner for a change of venue shall pay all costs and expenses attending such change of venue is that he is to pay such costs and expenses as are incident to or such as are made by reason of such change of venue. Section 1936 also provides that such costs and expenses "shall not be taxed in the costs of the suit," clearly indicating that they shall be separated from the costs made in the suit not incident to or made by reason of the application for a change of venue. This was plainly the idea of the court in Patterson v. Yancey, 97 Mo. App. loc. cit. 697, 71 S. W. 845, in speaking of the costs "attendant thereon." It therefore follows that the court erred in sustaining the motion to tax these costs agai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Farrar
... ... all jurisdiction of the cause, and could not, therefore, ... again assume jurisdiction. Hanna v. Buford, 194 S.W ... 517; State ex rel. v. Cook, 201 S.W. 364. (2) The ... person indicted for any offense and held to answer on bail, ... and ... ...
- Simpson Adv. Co. v. Mfgs.' and Merchants' Assn.
-
State v. Cook
...or any of its incidents, was left in the circuit court of Barry county. Ex parte Haley, 99 Mo. loc. cit. 152, 12 S. W. 667; Hanna v. Buford, 194 S. W. 517; Little River Drainage Dist. v. Tomlinson, 245 Mo. loc. cit. 10-12, 149 S. W. 454. See, also, Sutton v. Cole, 155 Mo. 206, 55 S. W. 1052......
- Cunningham v. Elvins