Ingham v. Pierce

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan

Ingham v. Pierce

37 F. 647, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan

DecidedJuly 30, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 F. 647 (Ingham v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingham v. Pierce, 37 F. 647, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747 (circtwdmi 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Jackson, J.,

(orally.) The district judge, in deciding the present point in Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, followed the course of practice indicated by Judge Treat in Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467. In the latter case the language employed by the judge ivas somewhat wider than the decision. We do not think it is necessary to criticise that case, however, for it is made to appear to us that throughout this circuit, at least, and a.s it would seem in the others generally, the practice has been, and is, to allow such costs in like circumstances. Rev. St. § 824. And among the reported cases, see Jerman v. Stewart, 12 Fed. Rep. 271; Stimpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456; Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 16; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf. 112, 23 Fed. Rep. 49. Without examining the question on its original merits, we arc satisfied that the practical interpretation of the statute in the other direction has been generally in the courts of this circuit so long established, and for the sake of uniformity, as well, we should overrule the decision in Tuck v. Olds in this particular, and allow this item to he taxed. Ordered accordingly.

Severens, District Judge, desires that I should express his concurrence in this opinion.

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

Jackson, J.,

(orally.) The district judge, in deciding the present point in Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, followed the course of practice indicated by Judge Treat in Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467. In the latter case the language employed by the judge ivas somewhat wider than the decision. We do not think it is necessary to criticise that case, however, for it is made to appear to us that throughout this circuit, at least, and a.s it would seem in the others generally, the practice has been, and is, to allow such costs in like circumstances. Rev. St. § 824. And among the reported cases, see Jerman v. Stewart, 12 Fed. Rep. 271; Stimpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456; Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 16; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf. 112, 23 Fed. Rep. 49. Without examining the question on its original merits, we arc satisfied that the practical interpretation of the statute in the other direction has been generally in the courts of this circuit so long established, and for the sake of uniformity, as well, we should overrule the decision in Tuck v. Olds in this particular, and allow this item to he taxed. Ordered accordingly.

Severens, District Judge, desires that I should express his concurrence in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. 647, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingham-v-pierce-circtwdmi-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack