Hake v. Brown

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

Hake v. Brown

44 F. 734, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1176

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 F. 734 (Hake v. Brown) 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

Hake v. Brown, 44 F. 734, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1176 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the complainant from the taxation of defendants’ costs.

1. His first exception is to the item of “deposition fees, $60.” This includes the taking of the testimony of 24 different witnesses before the examiner, pursuant to rule 67 of the equity rules of the supreme court. The depositions of these witnesses were admitted or used in evidence on the trial. The complainant cites the cases of Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467, and of Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, in support of hiS contention. In this circuit, however, the question has been settled the other way, and no sufficient ground for reconsidering the views expressed in the earlier decisions is shown. The clerk’s taxation in this particular is therefore affirmed. Stimpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. Rep. 49; Spill v. Manufacturing Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 870; Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 17. See also the opinion of Judge Jackson in Ingham v. Pierce, 37 Fed. Rep. 647.

[735]*7352. Complainant next objects to the charge for printing the record and brief, in compliance with the rules of this court. Whatever may be the decisions in other circuits, it is settled in this circuit that this is a proper item of disbursements. Cir. Ct. Rule May 18, 1878; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195.

I». The defendants also have appealed from the clerk’s refusal to allow more than one traveling fee to the same witness, when the taking of his testimony required his attendance on several different occasions, and intervals between the witness’ successive appearances were so long as to warrant his return to his home, and therefore require addi Tonal traveling expenses to secure his attendance on the adjourned day. In only one of these cases, however, does it appear from the record that such adjournment was caused by the sole fault of the complainant. For that attendance, the additional traveling fees may be allowed. In all the other cases the clerk’s taxation is affirmed.

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

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the complainant from the taxation of defendants’ costs.

1. His first exception is to the item of “deposition fees, $60.” This includes the taking of the testimony of 24 different witnesses before the examiner, pursuant to rule 67 of the equity rules of the supreme court. The depositions of these witnesses were admitted or used in evidence on the trial. The complainant cites the cases of Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467, and of Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, in support of hiS contention. In this circuit, however, the question has been settled the other way, and no sufficient ground for reconsidering the views expressed in the earlier decisions is shown. The clerk’s taxation in this particular is therefore affirmed. Stimpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. Rep. 49; Spill v. Manufacturing Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 870; Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 17. See also the opinion of Judge Jackson in Ingham v. Pierce, 37 Fed. Rep. 647.

[735]*7352. Complainant next objects to the charge for printing the record and brief, in compliance with the rules of this court. Whatever may be the decisions in other circuits, it is settled in this circuit that this is a proper item of disbursements. Cir. Ct. Rule May 18, 1878; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195.

I». The defendants also have appealed from the clerk’s refusal to allow more than one traveling fee to the same witness, when the taking of his testimony required his attendance on several different occasions, and intervals between the witness’ successive appearances were so long as to warrant his return to his home, and therefore require addi Tonal traveling expenses to secure his attendance on the adjourned day. In only one of these cases, however, does it appear from the record that such adjournment was caused by the sole fault of the complainant. For that attendance, the additional traveling fees may be allowed. In all the other cases the clerk’s taxation is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 F. 734, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hake-v-brown-circtsdny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack