Wagner Chisholm v. Dunham

246 S.W. 1044
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 5, 1923·No. No. 895.·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinions

On Appellee’s Motion to Retax Costs.

On appellee’s motion to retax costs, a satisfactory showing has been made that no question and answer form of the testimony was filed in the trial court in this case, but only the narrative form, which we have in the record as the statement of facts, which cannot be taxed as an item of costs. Under the present law only a question and answer form can be taxed as costs. Schallert v. Boggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 210 S. W. 601. We would not be understood as holding that the parties may not substitute the narrative for the question and answer form, and by agreement have it taxed as costs, in lieu of the cost that would accrue for the preparation of the question and answer form; but no such showing is made in this case.

Therefore appellee’s motion to retax the costs of this appeal is granted to the extent only of eliminating from the costs taxed against him the item of $46 for the narrative form of statement of facts.

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

Wagner Chisholm v. Dunham, 246 S.W. 1044 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

246 S.W. 1044 (Wagner Chisholm v. Dunham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elder v. Triax Co.
740 P.2d 1320 (Utah Supreme Court, 1987)
Dooling v. Casey
448 P.2d 749 (Montana Supreme Court, 1968)
West Texas State Bank v. Tri-Service Drilling Co.
339 S.W.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Morgan v. Young
203 S.W.2d 837 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Amerine v. Darden
116 S.W.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Higgins
68 S.W.2d 1056 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Killingsworth
54 S.W.2d 266 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Donaldson v. Meyer
279 S.W. 326 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)