Wall v. . Covington

76 N.C. 150
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1877·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Bynum, J.

Upon the trial of the case, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the debt and the costs of the action. It was further ordered by the Court, that D. Stewart, the Clerk, be allowed $250 for taking and stating the account, one half to be paid by the defendants and the other half by the plaintiffs.

There is error. The Clerk, as Clerk, is entitled to no fees or allowance for taking and stating an account by order of *152 ilie Court. Bat. Rev. cb. 105, § 23. If the account was taken by Mm as referee, under C. C. P. § 245, as we think it was, then the fees therefor are fixed and determined hy C. C. P. § 285. They then become a part of the costs, andaré to be inserted in the judgment. C. C. P. § 283. The party prevailing in the action is entitled, as a matter of law, to recover full costs of the other party, unless in cases otherwise provided for.

This case does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions, but is governed by the provisions of C. C. P. § 287, .arid further explained and confirmed by C. C. P. §§ 276, 277 and 343. (v.)

The plaintiffs, therefore, .having recovered judgment, no part of the costs can be taxed against them, but they are to be taxed against the defendants and include the fees of referees.

Error.

Judgment reversed. Per Curiam.

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

Wall v. . Covington, 76 N.C. 150 (N.C. 1877).

76 N.C. 150 (Wall v. . Covington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith Ex Rel. Newton v. Myers
125 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Williams v. . Hughes
51 S.E. 790 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Cobb v. Rhea.
49 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Wooten v. . Walters
14 S.E. 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Ferrabow v. . Green
14 S.E. 973 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892)
Horton v. . Horne
5 S.E. 927 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
Wharton v. . Gattis
91 N.C. 53 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)