Stallo v. Wagner
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Citation | 245 F. 636 |
Docket Number | 195. |
Parties | STALLO v. WAGNER. |
Decision Date | 06 July 1917 |
Rockwood & Haldane, of New York City (Charles A. Winter, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Barber Watson & Gibboney, of New York City (Stuart G. Gibboney and George M. Burditt, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
See also, 233 F. 379, 147 C.C.A. 315.
This cause comes here on appeal from certain orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which orders were dated respectively August 30, 1916, and October 10, 1916.
The complainant brought an action in the District Court for an accounting of certain transactions alleged to have been had between complainant and the Mt. Vernon National Bank. The trial lasted a week, and 550 pages of testimony were taken. The transactions involved were somewhat complicated, the claims aggregating in excess of $74,000. A transcript of the daily proceedings of the trial made each night by the stenographer was furnished the judge, who had requested that a copy of the evidence be submitted to him from day to day. Two other copies were furnished, one each to the complainant and defendant. At the conclusion of the trial a decree was entered, from which both parties appealed. When the case reached this court we held that the bill was without merit and remanded the cause, with directions to dismiss the bill with costs in both courts. Thereupon in due course the defendant served a bill of costs with notice of taxation of the same. The plaintiff objected to an item for $432.90, which was for the stenographer's fees for the minutes of the trial, the item being apparently for the copy of the minutes obtained for the use of the defendant in the conduct of the trial, the plaintiff having paid for the copies which had been furnished to himself and to the judge. The clerk on May 18, 1916, allowed the item to be included in the costs taxed. The complainant then moved the court for an order retaxing the costs of the defendant, and an opinion was rendered on August 30, 1916, reaffirming a previous ruling allowing the stenographer's fees to be taxed. Thereafter a motion was made for a retaxation, and on October 10, 1916, an order was entered nunc pro tunc as of June 16, 1916, and the taxation of the item was affirmed. Thereupon this appeal was taken from the orders.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The question which counsel ask the court to determine in this case is whether in an equity suit the amount paid by defendant for a copy of the stenographer's minutes furnished him for use on the trial can be taxed as a part of the costs. The amount involved, $432.90, is not large, but the principle is important.
Costs were not recoverable eo nomine at common law. It is said, therefore, that costs can be imposed at least in law cases, only where there is statutory authority therefor. Stevens v. Boston Central National Bank, 168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904; Alger v. Boston, 168 Mass. 516, 47 N.E. 194; Studwell v. Cooke, 38 Conn. 549; Smith v. Boynton, 44 N.H. 529. The Legislature may grant the power in general terms to the courts, and these tribunals may make rules or orders under which costs may be taxed. It has been held that the power to do this has been granted by Congress. See Tesla Electric Co. v. Scott (C.C.) 101 F. 524, and cases there cited. We are not, however, concerned now to inquire as to the power of the federal courts to tax costs in law cases. For the question here comes up in an equity case. Nevertheless we observe that in cases at law where the right to tax costs is given, the courts have held that the stenographer's fees are not taxable as 'costs' except where the statutes so provide. Kelly v. Springfield R. Co. (C.C.) 83 F. 183, and cases there cited; Hughes v. Edisto Cypress Shingle Co., 51 S.C. 1, 28 S.E. 2; Bringgold v. City of Spokane, 19 Wash. 333, 53 P. 368; Down v. McGourkey, 15 Hun (N.Y.) 444.
It was enacted by 17 Rich. II, c. 6, that the chancellor should award damages according to his discretion against persons bringing vexatious and unfounded suits in chancery. And 'damages,' as used in this statute, has been understood as including costs. Since the enactment of the statute the power of adjudging costs has become apparently so far inherent in the equity court as to be inseparable from the exercise of its judicial authority. It has frequently been said that the power of a court of equity to give costs is wholly inherent in the court independent of any statutory authority, and solely according to the conscience of the court.
'This view,' it is said in Street's Federal Equity Practice, vol. 2, Sec. 983,
And in section 1994 the same writer says that:
Congress has enacted as follows:
'U.S. Comp. Stat. 1916, Ann., vol. 3, p. 3223, Sec. 1624; section 983 of the Revised Statutes, p. 184.
And rule 50 of the existing equity rules (198 F. xxxii, 115 C.C.A. xxxii) is as follows:
Are the copies of the stenographer's minutes to be regarded as included in the clause 'copies of papers necessarily obtained for use on trial'? And does equity rule 50 mean anything more than that the fees paid for the copy of the minutes of the stenographer furnished to the court shall be taxed, and not the fees paid for the copy furnished to either of the parties?
In equity the matter of the imposition of costs is so far a matter within the discretion of the court of first instance that a decree relating to costs alone will not ordinarily be reviewed in an appellate court. Canter v. Insurance Co. (1830) 3 Pet. 307, 317, 7 L.Ed. 688; Elastic Fabric Co. v. Smith, 100 U.S. 110, 25 L.Ed. 547 (1879); Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U.S. 58, 15 Sup.Ct. 729, 39 L.Ed. 895 (1895). But it has been held that an appeal lies when a decree complained of involves the construction and application of a positive statute involving the allowance of costs. This was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit. In re Michigan Central R. Co., 124 F. 727, 733, 59 C.C.A. 643 (1903). This decision was followed by the same court in Scatcherd v. Love, 166 F. 53, 91 C.C.A. 639 (1908). So in Blanks v. Klein, 78 F. 395, 24 C.C.A. 144 (1896), the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit, while recognizing the general rule that an appeal from a mere decree for costs should be dismissed, held that, as one item taxed was incurred in the appellate court, it would consider the matter. And in Kell v. Trenchard, 146 F. 245, 76 C.C.A. 611 (1906), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entertained an appeal where the sole question presented arose upon the taxation of costs by the lower court in carrying out the decree and mandate of the Court of Appeals in the former appeal, and which prescribed that the costs in both courts should be borne equally between the appellant and the appellees. It was held that the action of the lower court in carrying into effect the decree of the Court of Appeals was subject to the review of the latter court.
In the instant case the disputed item is claimed under a statute, and also under equity rule 50 which has the force of a statute. The questions presented also arise upon the taxation of costs by the lower court in carrying out the decree and mandate of this court in the former appeal.
In Prescott & Arizona Central Railway Co. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 84 F. 213, 28 C.C.A. 481 (1897), this court through Judges Wallace and Shipman held that, where a judgment dismissing the complaint 'with costs to be taxed' was signed by the judge and entered by the clerk, it was a final judgment. 'Nothing further was necessary,' it was stated in the opinion, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 23239.
...of equity and the endowment of it with judicial authority necessarily imports a power in such court to adjudge costs. Stallo v. Wagner, 245 F. 636, 638 (2d Cir. 1917) (internal quotation marks omitted). While this Court has implicitly adopted this rationale at times, the recognized exceptio......
-
Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson, 157
...to receive such copy. Although at law, see Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 2 Cir., 1924, 297 F. 791, in equity, see Stallo v. Wagner, 2 Cir., 1917, 245 F. 636, and in admiralty, see The William Branfoot, 4 Cir., 1892, 52 F. 390 (per Chief Justice Fuller), the amount paid for a litigant'......
-
Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
...has for several centuries existed in the English Court of Chancery, and has been exercised in a variety of cases. In Stallo v. Wagner (C. C. A.) 245 F. 636, 638, the court, in referring to the historical basis of the power of the equity courts in awarding costs, "It was enacted by 17 Rich. ......
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. JG Menihan Corp., 252.
...v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 83, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909; United States v. Knowles' Estate, 9 Cir., 58 F.2d 718; Stallo v. Wagner, 2 Cir., 245 F. 636; In re Michigan Central R. Co., 6 Cir., 124 F. Reconstruction Finance Corporation is a corporation created by the act of January ......