Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Penberthy Injector Co.

109 F. 964, 48 C.C.A. 760, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4264
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 15, 1901
DocketNo. 922
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 109 F. 964 (Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Penberthy Injector Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Penberthy Injector Co., 109 F. 964, 48 C.C.A. 760, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4264 (6th Cir. 1901).

Opinion

LURTON, Circuit Judge.

Upon a former day of this term the decree of the circuit court was reversed, and costs taxed. The appellant has now filed a petition praying a retaxation of costs, as follows:

„ 1. That the amount paid clerk of the circuit court for transcript of record on appeal — $87.25—be taxed here as costs taxable to the appellee. This must be denied. Rule 31, par. 3, provides that “the costs of the transcript of record from the court below shall be taxable in that court as costs in the case.” 31 C. C. A. clxix., 90 Fed. clxix.

2. That $20.90, paid by appellant to the commissioner of patents for copies of patents for insertion in the printed record, be taxed as costs of appeal. This is allowed. It is part of the cost of printing the record, and therefore taxable here.

3. That the sum of $10.50, paid a surety company for furnishing appeal bond, be taxed as costs. This must be disallowed, as there is no authority for taxing such an item.

4. That the cost of printing appellant’s brief be taxed as costs. This must be disallowed.. It has never been the practice of either the supreme court or this court to allow as costs the disbursement of counsel for printing briefs. Ex parte Hughes, 114 U. S. 548, 5 Sup. Ct. 1008, 29 L. Ed. 281.

The application, so far as it relates to the cost of copies of patents, is allowed, and in all other respects denied.

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

Related

Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Martin
97 F.2d 348 (Sixth Circuit, 1938)
Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
169 S.E. 834 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY
265 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1924)
The Walter Adams
271 F. 358 (D. Rhode Island, 1921)
Parkerson v. Borst
256 F. 827 (Fifth Circuit, 1919)
Bailey v. Mississippi Home Telephone Co.
254 F. 358 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1918)
United States v. Thlinket Packing Co.
6 Alaska 117 (D. Alaska, 1918)
Jose v. Hunter
124 N.E. 65 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
The Texas
226 F. 897 (Third Circuit, 1915)
United States v. Miller
223 F. 183 (S.D. Georgia, 1915)
Bond v. United Railroads
128 P. 786 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
The Gov. Ames
199 F. 587 (D. Massachusetts, 1912)
Smith v. Davis
187 F. 40 (First Circuit, 1910)
Williams v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.
103 P. 885 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
The Bencliff
158 F. 377 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1908)
Edison v. American Mutoscope Co.
117 F. 192 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 F. 964, 48 C.C.A. 760, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-injector-mfg-co-v-penberthy-injector-co-ca6-1901.