Tuck v. Olds
| Decision Date | 01 January 1886 |
| Citation | 29 F. 883 |
| Parties | TUCK v. OLDS and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Taggart Wolcott & Ganson, for complainant.
Dart & Call and G. A. Wolf, for defendants.
The complainant's costs in this cause having been taxed, a motion for retaxation thereof is now made, presenting three points for determination:
First. Exception is taken to the allowance by the taxing officer of nine dollars for a survey made by one of the witnesses of the locus in quo, a certain dock, the exact location of which was somewhat in controversy in the case. The regular fees of this witness in the case appear to have been duly taxed according to the provisions of law, and this item of nine dollars is not for his fees as a witness, but for his services in making a preliminary survey of the dock for the purpose of qualifying him to testify with precision as to its situation. However desirable it may have been in the interest of the complainant that such survey should be made, in order that intelligent testimony upon that subject might be presented and reasonable as it might seem, as an abstract proposition, that he should be compensated for the expenditure thereby incurred, as a question of law I have no doubt that the item must be disallowed. Costs are the creature of statute law, and there is nothing in the statutes regulating the taxation of costs which would justify the allowance of this item.
Second. Exception is also taken to the allowance of $10 as solicitor's fees for the taking of four depositions in the cause, which were taken at Petoskey, before John G. Hill Esq., pursuant to an order of this court, based upon the stipulation of the solicitors in the cause, constituting him a special examiner for that purpose. It will be seen, therefore, that these depositions, although not taken before a regular examiner of this court, were taken in strict analogy to the ordinary practice of the court regulating the taking of testimony in causes, and that the authority to take them was conferred by the court in compliance with the stipulation of the parties. I do not think that the statute providing for the taxation of attorney's or solicitor's fees for taking depositions covers, either by its express terms or by any fair interpretation thereof, depositions taken before any of the regular examining officers of the court in the ordinary way of taking testimony in equity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Ruth
...are entitled to fees. See Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp., 47 F.R.D. 158, 162 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Tuck v. Olds, 29 F. 883, 885 (W.D.Mich.1886). Under these circumstances, we cannot deem the trial judge's decision to award witness fees an abuse of discretion. We accordin......
-
Hope Basket Co. v. Product Advancement Corp.
...one of those expenses incident to preparation for trial, which can never be construed as taxable on any present theory." See also Tuck v. Olds, C.C., 29 F. 883. The authorities cited by defendants do not sustain their contention that these two items are properly taxable as costs in this cas......
-
Kemart Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Lab.
...Clerk\'s ruling allowing the fees was amply supported by the cases which he cited, viz., The Petroleum No. 5, D.C., 41 F.2d 268; Tuck v. Olds, C.C., 29 F. 883; Fredericksen v. McDonald, 1 Cir., 223 F. 13. Though these were admiralty cases the principle involved is equally applicable to the ......
-
Ferguson v. Dent
...for damages caused by the receiver made proof by depositions taken and used before the master upon a reference to him. In Tuck v. Olds, 29 F. 883, fees were disallowed by Judge SEVERENS in an equity case; but the report does not show whether the depositions were taken to be used on the 'fin......