Jones v. Delta Land & Water Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1918
• Docket Number: 2244.,2233,2220-2222,2235
• Citation: 258 F. 761
• Parties: JONES v. DELTA LAND & WATER CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

258 F. 761

JONES v. DELTA LAND & WATER CO. et al.

Nos. 2220-2222, 2233, 2235, 2244.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

November 11, 1918

Evans Evans & Folland, Dey, Hoppaugh & Fabian, and Walton & Walton all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffs.

Story &amp Steigmeyer and Wm. Story, Jr., all of Salt Lake City, Utah for defendant Delta Land & Water Co.

FARRINGTON District Judge.

Thirteen different cases were commenced by as many different plaintiffs in the district court of the Fifth judicial district, Millard county, Utah, against the Delta Land & Water Company. All were removed to this court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs were all residents and citizens of California, while the defendant is a Nevada corporation. Motions to remand were made in 7 cases, argued August 5, 1918, and allowed August 31, 1918. By stipulation of counsel, motions to remand in the remaining 6 cases were submitted without argument October 23, 1918, and in each an order to remand was entered, with costs. The matter is now before the court on appeal from the taxation by the clerk of a docket fee of $10 in each of the 6 cases.

By section 824, Rev. St. U.S. (Comp. St. Sec. 1378), a docket fee of $20 is allowed in each case when a trial is had before a jury in a civil or criminal case; but in cases at law, when judgment is rendered without a jury, the docket fee is $10. The allowance of such a fee has been approved in the following cases: Pellett v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (C.C.) 105 F. 194; Riser v. So. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 116 F. 1014; Acker v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 190 F. 288; Walsh's Adm'x v. Joplin & P. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 219 F. 345.

It is considered that an order remanding a cause is a final disposition thereof in a federal court, therefore in the nature of a final judgment; and hence, within the meaning of the above-quoted statute, it may be regarded as a judgment rendered without a jury. True, there has been but one argument covering all 13 cases; but there were 13 different plaintiffs, each of whom was put to expense and inconvenience, and each, under section 37 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1098 (Comp. St Sec. 1019)), is entitled to his costs. It is provided in that section that on remanding the cause the court shall make such order as to costs as shall be just. Here each plaintiff was represented by an attorney, who prepared and presented a motion to...