Kirkley v. Nolly

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Kirkley v. Nolly

19 S.C.L. 398

DecidedDecember 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.C.L. 398 (Kirkley v. Nolly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirkley v. Nolly, 19 S.C.L. 398 (S.C. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

At common law, and independently of the' Act of Assembly regulating the fees of the officers of court, the party recovering judgment, is entitled to be reimbursed actual expenses necessarily incurred in prosecuting his case; and therefore, money paid to witnesses for their attendance before commissioners to be examined, and to the commissioners for taking their depositions, should be allowed in the taxation of costs; nor is this inconsistent with the Act of 1827, which relates only to services therein “specifically enumerated.”

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

At common law, and independently of the' Act of Assembly regulating the fees of the officers of court, the party recovering judgment, is entitled to be reimbursed actual expenses necessarily incurred in prosecuting his case; and therefore, money paid to witnesses for their attendance before commissioners to be examined, and to the commissioners for taking their depositions, should be allowed in the taxation of costs; nor is this inconsistent with the Act of 1827, which relates only to services therein “specifically enumerated.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.C.L. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkley-v-nolly-scctapp-1833.