Rookery Realty, Loan, Investment & Building Co. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 08 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 17625.,17625.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: ROOKERY REALTY, LOAN, INVESTMENT & BUILDING CO. v. JOHNSON.

251 S.W. 741

ROOKERY REALTY, LOAN, INVESTMENT & BUILDING CO. v. JOHNSON.

No. 17625.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 8, 1923.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1923.

Where the items of costs complained of are such as might be properly taxed against either party, the order of the trial court relative thereto will not be disturbed.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William H. Killoren, Judge.

"Not to he officially published."

Action by the Rookery Realty, Loan, Investment & Building Company against James Brooks Johnson. Decree for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff dismissed. From an order overruling motion to retax costs, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. M. Nichols, of St. Louis, for appellant. John A. Gilliam, of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAUES, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis overruling appellant's motion to retax costs. The controversy arises out of the following situation: A suit was instituted by appellant in September, 1917, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against the respondent; the object and purpose being to clear title to real estate. Defendant filed an answer and cross-bill, which met issue in a reply. The cause was tried, and the chancellor found plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for in its bill, and further that the defendant was not entitled to the relief prayed for in his cross-bill, and ordered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff, appellant here, pay all costs. Whereupon plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. This appeal was later, or. October 25, 1920, dismissed by appellant, the order of dismissal in the Supreme Court being in, usual form adjudging against appellant "the costs and charges herein expended." Afterwards, when the case came back to the circuit court, appellant filed a motion to retax certain items of costs against the defendant. The lower court's refusal to so retax these costs is the controversy here.

This being, an equity case, the awarding of costs was, in the first instance, within the sound discretion of the chancellor. The costs were taxed against plaintiff. The appeal to the Supreme Court being dismissed, the decree became final. Now the only question that could arise is whether the items included in the cross-bill are proper items of costs to be taxed in the case. We have examined same, and find no reason for interference with the action of the trial court in overruling plaintiff's motion to retax costs. The items...