Work v. Mallory

25 Miss. 172
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1852·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These cases present these questions: first, whether, when a case is dismissed in this court for want of jurisdiction, the party who filed the record and prosecuted the writ of error or appeal is liable to be taxed with the costs of the suit? We have fully considered this question, and respond in the affirmative.

The second question is, whether the costs of the transcript of the record, charged in the inferior court, should be taxed in this court as a part of the costs of the suit? When the acts of 10th February, 1844, (Hutch. Code, 486,) and the act of March 2d, 1833, (Hutch. Code, 932,) are taken in conjunction, we think that .it may be properly ruled, that the costs of such transcript should be taxed in the bill of costs in this court.

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

Work v. Mallory, 25 Miss. 172 (Mich. 1852).

25 Miss. 172 (Work v. Mallory) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kent v. Board of Commissioners
42 Kan. 534 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Paine v. Chase
14 Wis. 653 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1861)