Mt. Nebo Anthracite Coal Co. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 28 September 1908
• Citation: 112 S.W. 882
• Parties: MT. NEBO ANTHRACITE COAL CO. v. MARTIN et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

112 S.W. 882

MT. NEBO ANTHRACITE COAL CO. v. MARTIN et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

September 28, 1908.

On motion to retax costs and modify decree. Judgment corrected to conform to opinion, and motion otherwise overruled.

For opinion on merits, see 111 S. W. 1002.

HILL, C. J.

1. Appellants ask that the costs be retaxed and the decree modified in so far as the claim of Mrs. Minnie C. Martin is concerned. The giving of costs in equity is within the discretion of the chancellor, to be exercised upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case and the situation of the parties, and appellate courts are slow to disturb his award of the costs, when he has exercised that discretion. Williams v. Buchanan (Ark.) 110 S. W. 1025; Temple v. Lawson, 19 Ark. 148; State v. Fort, 18 Ark. 202; Jones v. Graham, 36 Ark. 383. The chancellor adjudged that all of the costs of the suit, including the fees of the master, be paid from cash in the bank belonging to the defendant corporation. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case which would call for a reversal of this award of the costs.

The opinion heretofore delivered announced that this decree was affirmed, but the clerk made a mistake in writing up the judgment of affirmance, making it a recovery from the appellants of all the costs in the chancery court, as well as in this court, and this mistake was not detected by the court when the record was approved. Attention has been called to it by this motion, and the order will be that the judgment be corrected, so as to affirm the decision of the chancellor in this respect, and the judgment for costs against the appellants be for the costs of this court only; the costs of the chancery court to be paid as provided in the order of that court, which was not intended to be disturbed.

2. Appellants point out that the statute of limitations was pleaded against the claim of Mrs. Martin, and show that in the final decree of the chancellor, after some other motions had been disposed of, the coal company "interposed the plea of the statute of limitations against plaintiff's claim for salary, and the court doth find that said claim is not barred by limitation." When this question was raised on rehearing, the pleadings were searched in order to find wherein the statute of limitations was pleaded, and the court orders were searched in order to find if the court had accepted an oral plea, as contended by counsel; and, none being found at these places,...