Beckwith v. Easton

3 F. Cas. 29, 4 Ben. 357
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 29 (Beckwith v. Easton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beckwith v. Easton, 3 F. Cas. 29, 4 Ben. 357 (E.D.N.Y. 1870).

Opinion

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The fees of witnesses who actually attended are taxable, and the affidavit must show that the sums charged have been actually paid. The statute only permits the taxation of “the amount paid witnesses.” . The Highlander, [Case No. 6,474.] Travel fees of witnesses living out of the district may be allowed for 100 miles travel, but for no greater distance. Witnesses living out of the district who do not live at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial, may be reached by subpoena out of this court, [Act March 2, 1793,] (1 Stat. 335, [c. 22,]) and traveling fees to a witness are allowable only to the extent a subpoena will run. 5 Blatchf. 134, [Anon., Case No. 432.]

The fact that a witness was examined de bene esse does not prevent allowance of his fees for attending the trial in person. If he attended the trial in good faith, and was examined, his fees are taxable; and also the proctor’s fee for his deposition, if the same was taken and admitted in evidence.

The respondents are entitled- to a detailed bill of the commissioner’s fees, showing the [30]*30items, and that they are legally chargeable under the act of July 26, 1853, [Act Feb. 26, 1853; 10 Stat. 161,] and it must have, attached, an oath that the services charged therein have been actually and necessarily performed. No docket fee can be allowed upon exceptions to a commissioner’s report. The bill of costs will be referred back to the clerk for retaxation in accordance with these views.

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

Related

Howard Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company
324 F.2d 359 (Second Circuit, 1963)
Gallagher v. Union Pac. R.
7 F.R.D. 208 (S.D. New York, 1947)
Vincennes Steel Corporation v. Miller
94 F.2d 347 (Fifth Circuit, 1938)
Hoffschlaeger Co. v. Young Nap
2 D. Haw. 108 (D. Hawaii, 1904)
Hanchett v. Humphrey
93 F. 895 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1899)
Sloss Iron & Steel Co. v. South Carolina & G. R.
75 F. 106 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1896)
Pinson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.
54 F. 464 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1893)
The Vernon
36 F. 113 (E.D. Michigan, 1888)
Buffalo Insurance v. Providence & Stonington Steam-Ship Co.
29 F. 237 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1886)
United States v. Sanborn
28 F. 299 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1886)
In re Trundy
18 F. 607 (S.D. New York, 1883)
Coy v. Perkins
13 F. 111 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1882)
Jerman v. Stewart
12 F. 271 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. Cas. 29, 4 Ben. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckwith-v-easton-nyed-1870.