Pringle v. The Michigan
Decision Date | 14 June 1892 |
Citation | 52 F. 509 |
Parties | THE MICHIGAN. v. THE MICHIGAN. PRINGLE et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
H. C Wisner, for libelants.
R. T Gray and F. H. Canfield, for respondents.
This cause is now before the court on motion or appeal to correct the taxation of costs made herein against respondent. The question presented relates to the proper taxation of witness fees in favor of libelants, and arises upon the following stipulated facts, viz.:
It is conceded that the taxation of costs is correct, if libelants' witnesses are entitled to fees while coming to and returning from the trial, but that, if their fees are to be determined by the time they were in attendance upon the court or trial, then the taxation in libelants' favor is too much, by the sum of $25. The statute provides that the witnesses shall receive for each day's attendance in court, pursuant to law, $1.50, and 5 cents a mile for coming from his place of residence to the place of trial or hearing, and five cents a mile for returning. We think it clear, from the language of the statute and from the provisions for mileage, that witness fees cannot be properly taxed for the time or number of days occupied in coming to the place of trial and in returning. The mileage allowed is intended to cover that time.
It is equally clear that the time occupied by a witness in conference with counsel or proctor before the day fixed for trial or his attendance cannot be taxed as a 'day's attendance in court.' Witnesses, under the statute, are not entitled to a per diem for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ness v. Great Northern Railway Co.
...presence of witnesses is not sufficient. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1178; McArthur v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. Rep. 635, 57 S.W. 847; The Michigan, 52 F. 509; State Willis, 79 Iowa 326, 44 N.W. 699. Fredrick T. Cuthbert and Arthur R. Smythe, for respondent. The master must use ordinary and reasona......
-
Tritchler v. Smith
...for attendance at the place of trial, and is not allowable for the time spent in travel. Carter v. Sweet (C. C.) 84 F. 16;Pringle v. The Michigan (C. C.) 52 F. 509;People v. Sharp, 78 Misc. Rep. 528, 139 N. Y. S. 995;Moulton v. Townsend, 16 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 306. See also, Smith v. Smith, ......