Coy v. Perkins

13 F. 111, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2621
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
DecidedAugust 3, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 F. 111 (Coy v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coy v. Perkins, 13 F. 111, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2621 (circtdma 1882).

Opinion

Gray, Justice.

The fee bill allows to the attorney of a prevailing party, in cases, on the common-law side of the court, a docket fee of $20 on a* trial by a jury or before referees; of $10, when judgment is entered without á jury; and of $5 when the case is- discontinued. And the only provision that if makes for a similar fee to solicitors in equity, or to proctors in admiralty, is of the largest of these sums “on a final hearing,” which 'it classes with a trial by a jury, or before referees at common law. Rev. St. §§ 823, 824.

We are of opinion that upon the face of the statute the intention of the legislature is manifest that it is only where some question of law or fact, involved in or leading to the final disposition actually made of the case, has been submitted, or at least presented to the consideration of the court, that there can be said to have been a final hearing which warrants the taxation of a solicitor’s or proctor’s fee of $20.; as, for instance, where the court, on motion and argument, dismisses for irregularity an appeal from the district court, as in the case before Mr. Justice Nelson of Hayford v. Griffith, 3 Blatchf. C. C. 79, or where the plaintiff discontinues, after the court has substantially decided the merits of the case, either by an opinion expressed at the hearing upon the merits, as in the case of The Bay City, before Judge Brown, 3 Fed. Rep. 47, or by a previous interlocutory decree, as in Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Osgood, decided by Judge Shepley in February, 1878.

- In Howe v. Shumway, October, 1865, Mr. Justice Clifford, disregarding the practice of the clerk’s office, held that where by agreement of the parties a bill in equity was dismissed with costs, no solicitor’s fee should be allowed.

By the settled practice in equity, the plaintiff, before any decree in the case, may obtain, as of course, an order dismissing his bill with costs. Curtis v. Lloyd, 4 Mylne & C. 194; Cummins v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 79; 1 Daniell, Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Ed.) 790-793.

The order in the present case was entered in accordance with this practice, without notice to the defendant, or hearing or consideration of the case by the court. The only issue which had been joined was an issue of law upon the demurrer to the bill, no evidence had been taken, and the case had not even been set down for hearing.

The clerk’s taxation must therefore be modified by striking out the docket fee to the defendant’s solicitor. The statute having enacted thai no other compensation than as therein provided shall be taxed [113]*113and allowed to attorneys, solicitors, and proctors, and having provided for a fee upon discontinuance in cases at law only, no solicitor’s fee can be taxed in this case unless by the plaintiff’s consent.

As this appeal, though involving a small amount, presents a question of frequent occurrence in practice, we have consulted Judge Nelson, and he concurs in this opinion.

Taxation modified.

NOTE.

Fees Allowed to Officebs. Section 823 prescribes what fees are allowed to the clerk, district attorney, and other officers ;

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

Related

Hobson v. Lady Drake, Ltd.
1 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. New York, 1932)
The Bluefields
273 F. 268 (S.D. Alabama, 1921)
United States v. Wright's Pills
8 P.R. Fed. 334 (D. Puerto Rico, 1915)
The Dwinsk
227 F. 958 (S.D. New York, 1915)
Peck v. Richter
217 F. 880 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Howler v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
166 F. 828 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1909)
Black Diamond Coal-Min. Co. v. The H. C. Grady
87 F. 483 (N.D. California, 1898)
Barron v. The Mount Eden
87 F. 483 (N.D. California, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F. 111, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coy-v-perkins-circtdma-1882.