Leeds v. Loud
This text of 2 Miles 189 (Leeds v. Loud) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[190]*190The opinion of the court was delivered by
There is nothing in the fee bill which will justify the charge of thirty dollars for a witness’s travelling expenses from Troy, in the State of New York, and back. Nor can the court, under their general powers, allow such an item. The practice has been uniform to allow mileage only for each mile circular in travelling to and from the line of our own State, in the usual and ordinary route of travelling between the witness’s place of residence and the place of holding the court. A similar rule has been recognized in Massachusetts in the absence of any specific statutory regulation. Nelvin v. Whiting, 13 Pickering, 190.
The documents referred to in the last four items of the defendant’s bill, were rejected by the court, on the trial, as incompetent evidence. The party offering them has obtained the verdict without them, and lie must abide, on that point, by the only test which could be applied. Without then stating any general rule as to the expense of exemplifications of office papers, it is plain for the reason given, that the claim now made must be rejected. The taxation of the prothonotary is confirmed, with leave, however, to the defendant to file a claim for mileage for the witness.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Miles 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeds-v-loud-pactcomplphilad-1838.