State ex rel. Rusk v. Budge

106 N.W. 293, 15 N.D. 205, 1906 N.D. LEXIS 10
North Dakota Supreme Court·Decided February 23, 1906·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decision and order for judgment in the above entitled matter made no mention of costs, and the clerk therefore declined to tax any costs or insert in the judgment any provision for the recovery thereof. The plaintiff has applied for an order [206]*206requiring the clerk to do so. This is an original suit in equity commenced in this court; hence costs may be allowed or withheld in the discretion of the court. Section 5580, Rev. Codes 1899. Under the circumstances of this case we do not think costs should be allowed. The defendants had been appointed to execute the provisions of a statute and were in good faith attempting to perform their duty. It would be unjust to mulct them for the mistakes of the legislature.

(106 N. W. 293.)

The applicaion is denied.

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

State ex rel. Rusk v. Budge, 106 N.W. 293, 15 N.D. 205, 1906 N.D. LEXIS 10 (N.D. 1906).

106 N.W. 293 (State ex rel. Rusk v. Budge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Silbernagel v. Silbernagel
55 N.W.2d 713 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1952)
State ex rel. Miller v. Leech
157 N.W. 492 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1916)
Marshall-McCartney Co. v. Halloran
106 N.W. 293 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)