Perna v. Allentown Italian Society

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Perna v. Allentown Italian Society

19 Pa. D. & C. 440, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 258

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedMay 22, 1933

DocketNo. 5

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Pa. D. & C. 440 (Perna v. Allentown Italian Society) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perna v. Allentown Italian Society, 19 Pa. D. & C. 440, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 258 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Reno, P. J.,

This appeal from the judgment of the prothonotary in taxing costs presents two questions. The first relates to the fees of a translator. At the hearing, the chancellor suggested that both sides should employ experts to translate the minutes which were in question and endeavor to have them agree upon a correct translation. The suggestion was followed, and the fee in question here is that of the party who secured the final decree.

At common law, no costs could be recovered. They are created by statute, and a party seeking them must point to the “clear language” of a statute allowing them: Julius King Optical Company v. Royal Insurance Company, 24 Pa. Superior Ct. 527, 533; Webster v. Hopewell Borough, 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 549, 552; Incorporation of the Borough of Wayne, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 372, 375; Cooper’s Estate, 97 Pa, Superior Ct. 277, 279; Kline v. Shannon, 7 S. & R. 377. And it has been clearly decided that the losing party may not be compelled to pay as costs the compensation of a surveyor, even though he was appointed by the court: Caldwell v. Miller et al., 46 Pa. 233. A fortiori, when both sides employ translators upon the mere suggestion of the court. The claim for translator’s fees must be disallowed.

The second item relates to the fees of certain witnesses who, it is alleged, were in attendance in court but were not subpoenaed nor called to testify. A learned author has summarized the decisions upon this point thus: “Witnesses subpoenaed though not examined, and [witnesses] examined though not subpoenaed, are entitled to payment”: Wadlinger, Law of Costs in Pennsylvania, 326, § 152. This rule is sustained by numerous authorities cited by Wadlinger. Doubtless the rule should be read in the light of the qualification suggested by Judge Allison in Lagrosse v. Curran, 10 Phila. 140, that witnesses named in the subpoena, although not actually served therewith because service was waived, are to be counted as subpoenaed witnesses. But here the witnesses for whose fees claim is made were neither subpoenaed nor examined and, so far as we know, were not [441]*441named in a subpoena. There is no charge for a subpoena in the bill of costs, and it seems fair to conclude that none was prepared.

Now, May 22,1933, the exceptions to the prothonotary’s taxation of costs are overruled and the judgment of the prothonotary is affirmed.

From Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

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

Reno, P. J.,

This appeal from the judgment of the prothonotary in taxing costs presents two questions. The first relates to the fees of a translator. At the hearing, the chancellor suggested that both sides should employ experts to translate the minutes which were in question and endeavor to have them agree upon a correct translation. The suggestion was followed, and the fee in question here is that of the party who secured the final decree.

At common law, no costs could be recovered. They are created by statute, and a party seeking them must point to the “clear language” of a statute allowing them: Julius King Optical Company v. Royal Insurance Company, 24 Pa. Superior Ct. 527, 533; Webster v. Hopewell Borough, 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 549, 552; Incorporation of the Borough of Wayne, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 372, 375; Cooper’s Estate, 97 Pa, Superior Ct. 277, 279; Kline v. Shannon, 7 S. & R. 377. And it has been clearly decided that the losing party may not be compelled to pay as costs the compensation of a surveyor, even though he was appointed by the court: Caldwell v. Miller et al., 46 Pa. 233. A fortiori, when both sides employ translators upon the mere suggestion of the court. The claim for translator’s fees must be disallowed.

The second item relates to the fees of certain witnesses who, it is alleged, were in attendance in court but were not subpoenaed nor called to testify. A learned author has summarized the decisions upon this point thus: “Witnesses subpoenaed though not examined, and [witnesses] examined though not subpoenaed, are entitled to payment”: Wadlinger, Law of Costs in Pennsylvania, 326, § 152. This rule is sustained by numerous authorities cited by Wadlinger. Doubtless the rule should be read in the light of the qualification suggested by Judge Allison in Lagrosse v. Curran, 10 Phila. 140, that witnesses named in the subpoena, although not actually served therewith because service was waived, are to be counted as subpoenaed witnesses. But here the witnesses for whose fees claim is made were neither subpoenaed nor examined and, so far as we know, were not [441]*441named in a subpoena. There is no charge for a subpoena in the bill of costs, and it seems fair to conclude that none was prepared.

Now, May 22,1933, the exceptions to the prothonotary’s taxation of costs are overruled and the judgment of the prothonotary is affirmed.

From Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Pa. D. & C. 440, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perna-v-allentown-italian-society-pactcompllehigh-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack