Baird v. Shaffer

Supreme Court of Kansas

Baird v. Shaffer

201 P. 82, 109 Kan. 592, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedOctober 8, 1921

DocketNo. 23,166

StatusPublished

This text of 201 P. 82 (Baird v. Shaffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baird v. Shaffer, 201 P. 82, 109 Kan. 592, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 328 (kan 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

This is an appeal from a ruling refusing to retax costs and exclusively relating to costs which arose in a case and became a part of a judgment that was entered on April 3, 19.13. An appeal was taken to this court from that judgment August 13, 1915, and it was affirmed here. After-wards an execution was issued upon the judgment and on May 1, 1919, the costs were paid into court. No objection was made as to the costs assessed upon the first appeal nor for more than six years after they were adjudged. In-May, 1919, defendants moved for a retaxation of the costs allowed an expert witness, amounting to $109.58, which amount it appears was still in the hands of the clerk of the court. When the motion to retax the costs was denied, the court directed the clerk to hold the money pending an appeal from the decision which defendants announced they would take.

Aside from the fact that no objection was made to the assessment of costs which constituted a part of the judgment which was affirmed upon appeal; and apart from the fact that six years have elapsed and many terms of court have intervened without complaint as to these costs; and notwithstanding the voluntary payment of the same, all of which afforded grounds for holding that the defendants had waived their right to a [593]*593retaxation of the costs by reason of lapse of time and their own laches, the present appeal must be disposed of upon another ground. A proceeding to retax costs after the affirmance of the judgment, involves nothing but costs. A ruling relating exclusively to costs is not open to review here although the amount questioned may exceed $100. (Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Yawger, 52 Kan. 691, 35 Pac. 814; Asbell v. Aldrich, 95 Kan. 313, 147 Pac. 1126; Cramer v. Bank, 98 Kan. 641, 158 Pac. 1111.)

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

This is an appeal from a ruling refusing to retax costs and exclusively relating to costs which arose in a case and became a part of a judgment that was entered on April 3, 19.13. An appeal was taken to this court from that judgment August 13, 1915, and it was affirmed here. After-wards an execution was issued upon the judgment and on May 1, 1919, the costs were paid into court. No objection was made as to the costs assessed upon the first appeal nor for more than six years after they were adjudged. In-May, 1919, defendants moved for a retaxation of the costs allowed an expert witness, amounting to $109.58, which amount it appears was still in the hands of the clerk of the court. When the motion to retax the costs was denied, the court directed the clerk to hold the money pending an appeal from the decision which defendants announced they would take.

Aside from the fact that no objection was made to the assessment of costs which constituted a part of the judgment which was affirmed upon appeal; and apart from the fact that six years have elapsed and many terms of court have intervened without complaint as to these costs; and notwithstanding the voluntary payment of the same, all of which afforded grounds for holding that the defendants had waived their right to a [593]*593retaxation of the costs by reason of lapse of time and their own laches, the present appeal must be disposed of upon another ground. A proceeding to retax costs after the affirmance of the judgment, involves nothing but costs. A ruling relating exclusively to costs is not open to review here although the amount questioned may exceed $100. (Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Yawger, 52 Kan. 691, 35 Pac. 814; Asbell v. Aldrich, 95 Kan. 313, 147 Pac. 1126; Cramer v. Bank, 98 Kan. 641, 158 Pac. 1111.)

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 P. 82, 109 Kan. 592, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-v-shaffer-kan-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack