Edison v. American Mutoscope Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Edison v. American Mutoscope Co.

117 F. 192, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5090

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMay 3, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 117 F. 192 (Edison v. American Mutoscope Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., 117 F. 192, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5090 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

DACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Two of the items disallowed by the clerk, to wit, the premiums paid for appeal bond and for supersedeas bond, should be allowed. The court of appeals in the Sixth circuit disallowed a similar charge when sought to be taxed as costs; the only reason stated being that “there is no authority for taxing such an item.” Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Pemberthy Injector Co., 48 C. C. A. 760, 109 Fed. 964. There is authority, however, for taxing legitimate and proper disbursements which are rendered necessary by rules of practice as disbursements in the circuit court, and these premiums seem to be such disbursements. The printing of defendant’s exhibits in the circuit court was properly disallowed under the settled practice in this circuit, no order specially directing the printing being shown, and the original exhibits being presumably in proper shape to submit to the circuit judge. The requirement of the circuit court of appeals that more than one complete printed set- of exhibits shall be furnished, so that each judge who sits on the hearing of the appeal may have one, may be a good reason for taxing cost of printing them as a disbursement in circuit court of appeals, but it does not change the situation so far as the circuit court is concerned.

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

DACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Two of the items disallowed by the clerk, to wit, the premiums paid for appeal bond and for supersedeas bond, should be allowed. The court of appeals in the Sixth circuit disallowed a similar charge when sought to be taxed as costs; the only reason stated being that “there is no authority for taxing such an item.” Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Pemberthy Injector Co., 48 C. C. A. 760, 109 Fed. 964. There is authority, however, for taxing legitimate and proper disbursements which are rendered necessary by rules of practice as disbursements in the circuit court, and these premiums seem to be such disbursements. The printing of defendant’s exhibits in the circuit court was properly disallowed under the settled practice in this circuit, no order specially directing the printing being shown, and the original exhibits being presumably in proper shape to submit to the circuit judge. The requirement of the circuit court of appeals that more than one complete printed set- of exhibits shall be furnished, so that each judge who sits on the hearing of the appeal may have one, may be a good reason for taxing cost of printing them as a disbursement in circuit court of appeals, but it does not change the situation so far as the circuit court is concerned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. 192, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edison-v-american-mutoscope-co-circtsdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack