Behr v. Baker

Michigan Supreme Court

Behr v. Baker

241 N.W. 229, 257 Mich. 487, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 869

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 18, 1931·No. June, 1931, Docket No. 67, Calendar No. 35,662.·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

RETAXATION OF COSTS. I think the rule (Court Rule No. 5, § 7) is valid under which the premium paid for the stay bond was taxed. General rule making power is conferred upon this court by the Constitution (article 7, § 5); and, further, by legislative enactment "the *Page 489 regulation of costs" by rule is specifically left with the court. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13540.

The amount of the taxable costs will remain as determined by the clerk.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, FEAD, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred with NORTH, J.

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

RETAXATION OF COSTS. I think the rule (Court Rule No. 5, § 7) is valid under which the premium paid for the stay bond was taxed. General rule making power is conferred upon this court by the Constitution (article 7, § 5); and, further, by legislative enactment "the *Page 489 regulation of costs" by rule is specifically left with the court. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13540.

The amount of the taxable costs will remain as determined by the clerk.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, FEAD, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred with NORTH, J.

Behr v. Baker, 241 N.W. 229, 257 Mich. 487, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 869 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

241 N.W. 229 (Behr v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related