Emigh v. Tinter

108 So. 2d 913
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 12, 1959
DocketNo. 58-415
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 108 So. 2d 913 (Emigh v. Tinter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Emigh v. Tinter, 108 So. 2d 913 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed except the part thereof awarding costs to appellees.

It appears from the record that appellees took testimony by deposition of several witnesses, which depositions were neither introduced in evidence nor used in any manner during the course of the trial. The expenses incurred in procuring these depositions were taxed as cost against the unsuccessful appellants.

Whether the expenses of procuring depositions may be allowed as taxable costs in a civil action rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.1 This court is committed to the proposition that a proper administration of justice requires that costs of litigation be kept within reasonable bounds. It has been recently held that the fundamental question to be determined in taxing costs for the taking of depositions is did the deposition serve a useful purpose in the trial of the cause.2 Whether the depositions taken by the parties serve a useful purpose lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge, which discretion will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse.

The record before us is devoid of any showing by appellees that all the depositions for which costs have been allowed them served a useful purpose, nor does the judgment awarding costs contain any findings by the trial judge to that effect.

The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an appropriate judgment awarding costs to appellees in accordance with the principles stated herein.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.

HORTON, Acting Chief Judge, PEARSON, J., and WIGGINTON, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission
693 P.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1984)
IPEC, Inc. v. International Printing Machinery Corp.
251 So. 2d 911 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Bondy v. West
219 So. 2d 117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Buyer Finance Corp. v. Oliveros
196 So. 2d 451 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
GORDON INTERNAT'L ADV., INC. v. Charlotte County L. & T. Co.
170 So. 2d 59 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Melville v. Miami Shores
155 So. 2d 739 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Barnett v. Pan American Surety Company
139 So. 2d 192 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Crane v. Stulz
136 So. 2d 238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Ginsberg v. Ginsberg
128 So. 2d 435 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Butler v. Borowsky
120 So. 2d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 So. 2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emigh-v-tinter-fladistctapp-1959.