Home/W.D. Pennsylvania/Nash v. Raun

Nash v. Raun

67 F. Supp. 212, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2318
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 18, 1946
DocketCiv. A. 53 (Erie)
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 67 F. Supp. 212 (Nash v. Raun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nash v. Raun, 67 F. Supp. 212, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2318 (W.D. Pa. 1946).

Opinion

GOURLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit in trespass to recover for personal injuries and damages to his automobile sustained in a collision with a motor truck driven by defendant on October 9, 1941. Defendant’s answer denied liability and alleged as a counterclaim an action against plaintiff for damages to defendant’s truck, for loss of use thereof and for damages to milk supply which was being hauled on said truck.

This case came on for trial before the late Judge Schoonmaker with the result that the jury returned the following verdict : “And now, to wit: October 5, 1943, we, the Jurors empaneled in the above entitled case, find on the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Lewis E. Nash, in the amount of $13,500.00, and on the counter-claim of the defendant against the plaintiff we find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.”

Motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were submitted to the trial judge who refused them and art appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, with the result that the Circuit Court of Appeals by an opinion filed May 14, 1945, 149 F.2d 885, made the following order: “On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the order of the said District Court denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and judgment be, and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and entry of judgment for the defendant is directed. The order denying a new trial is affirmed. And that the Appellant, Peter Raun, recover against the Appellee, Lewis E. Nash, in the sum of fifty-three and 70/100 dollars ($53.70) for costs herein expended and have execution therefor. May 14, 1945.”

*214 From this the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for permission of a certiorari. This was refused by the Supreme Court, 66 S.Ct. 99.

On October 26, 1945, the defendant filed the following bill of costs with the deputy clerk of courts to be taxed:

Witness fees.................. $ 9.00

Transcript of Testimony........ 343.50

Costs awarded in the District Court ...................... 53.70

Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company (Bond $15,000, Feb. 7, 1944 to Feb. 7, 1945).. 300.00

Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company (Bond $15,000, Feb. 7, 1945 to June 23, 1945) .112.50

Murrelle Printing Company (May 29, 1944, printing Appellant’s Appendix to Brief, Circuit Court of Appeals) ........... 222.21

Murrelle Printing Company (July 5, 1944, printing Appellant’s Brief, Circuit Court of Appeals) ...................... 89.03

Murrelle Printing Company (Oct. 5, 1945 printing Appellee’s Answer to Petition for writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States) .......... 33.37

Total...................... $1,163.31

On November 5, 1945, the plaintiff filed the following bill of costs with the deputy clerk of courts to be taxed:

The deputy clerk of the United States District Court ignored the bill of costs filed by the plaintiff, and on November 14, 1945, filed the following as taxable costs in favor of the defendant:

Witness fees ......J............ $ 9.00

Transcript of Testimony ........ 343.50

Mandate of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, for appeal costs......................... 53.70'

Murrelle Printing Company (May 29, 1944, printing Appellant’s Appendix to Brief, Circuit Court of Appeals ...................... 222.21

Murrelle Printing Company (July 5, 1944, printing Appellant’s brief, Circuit Court of Appeals) 89.03

Murrelle Printing Company (October 5, 1945, printing Appellee’s answer to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States............. 33.37

Total ...................... $750.81

The deputy clerk of courts did not allow defendant the amounts paid for bonds, made necessary to perfect the appeal, in the amounts of $300 and $112.50, respectively.

On November 16, 1945, the plaintiff filed a motion for review of the taxation of the above costs filed by the deputy clerk of courts, setting forth that the plaintiff was as much a prevailing party as defendant, the said defendant having filed a counter-suit, which counter-suit was decided in favor of plaintiff, Lewis E. Nash.

Argument was heard on the above motion on March 25, 1946, and briefs were-submitted by both parties. Plaintiff is not pressing dismissal of the Circuit Court’s, mandate allowing defendant’s appeal costs, in the sum of $53.70, but admits it is bound by said mandate. Plaintiff objects, however, to the other items taxed as costs.. More particularly:

Witnesses fees:

Fred C. Garfield, 2 days at $1.50 $ 3.00

Arthur D. Scholton, 2 days at $1.50 ..................... 3.00

John R. Crabb, 2 days at $1.50.. 3.00

*215 DDO16Pr7JaRav1kQ

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

Related

Majorie Gillespie v. Lori Dring
Third Circuit, 2022
United States v. Orenic
110 F.R.D. 584 (W.D. Virginia, 1986)
Mabel Dale Ingvoldstad ex rel. Meyer v. Kings Wharf Island Enterprises, Inc.
20 V.I. 314 (Virgin Islands, 1983)
Mobile Power Enterprises, Inc. v. Power Vac, Inc., and Anilas Corporation, Eugene Ashley Gaiters v. Power Vac, Inc., and Anilas Corporation
496 F.2d 1311 (Tenth Circuit, 1974)
Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
24 F.R.D. 305 (D. Delaware, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F. Supp. 212, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-raun-pawd-1946.