Kagle v. Pennsylvania Railroad

N.D. Ohio

Kagle v. Pennsylvania Railroad

19 F.R.D. 197, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4302

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedJune 29, 1956

DocketCiv. No. 30275

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F.R.D. 197 (Kagle v. Pennsylvania Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kagle v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 19 F.R.D. 197, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4302 (N.D. Ohio 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

The defendant objects to the taxing as costs the expense of taking depositions. No question is raised about the item being a proper one, either in amount or as to its propriety. The defendant’s objections is that when the case was marked settled at defendant’s costs it was not within the defendant’s understanding that deposition costs would be included. The plaintiff denies that there was any understanding with reference to the items of costs.

The court is unable to resolve the conflicting statements of counsel as to any understanding respecting costs. The stipulation provides for the dismissal at defendant’s costs and this must be the only reasonable guide to decision of the question. The depositions were proper items of taxable costs and the plaintiff has supported this by a proper bill of costs under affidavit. The objections therefore will be denied.

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

JONES, Chief Judge.

The defendant objects to the taxing as costs the expense of taking depositions. No question is raised about the item being a proper one, either in amount or as to its propriety. The defendant’s objections is that when the case was marked settled at defendant’s costs it was not within the defendant’s understanding that deposition costs would be included. The plaintiff denies that there was any understanding with reference to the items of costs.

The court is unable to resolve the conflicting statements of counsel as to any understanding respecting costs. The stipulation provides for the dismissal at defendant’s costs and this must be the only reasonable guide to decision of the question. The depositions were proper items of taxable costs and the plaintiff has supported this by a proper bill of costs under affidavit. The objections therefore will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F.R.D. 197, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kagle-v-pennsylvania-railroad-ohnd-1956.