Yale Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Colvin

U.S. Circuit Court

Yale Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Colvin

14 F. 269, 21 Blatchf. 168, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 F. 269 (Yale Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yale Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Colvin, 14 F. 269, 21 Blatchf. 168, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748 (uscirct 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Wheeler, D. J.

This cause was discontinued by the orator with costs to the defendant. The clerk in taxing costs refused to tax a doeket fee of $20, and for the answer; and the defendant appeals from this taxation. The discontinuance was the voluntary act of the party. There was no hearing and decision of the court; therefore no docket fee is provided for by the statute. No costs for the answer itself are provided for, and none ^re taxable for it. The copies of an answer required by the rules to be furnished are taxable. The making the answer is an incident to the appearance, and no statute makes any allowance for it. The rule (equity rule 25) in regard to it is a limitation without anything to operate upon, as the statutes and rules now stand.

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

Wheeler, D. J.

This cause was discontinued by the orator with costs to the defendant. The clerk in taxing costs refused to tax a doeket fee of $20, and for the answer; and the defendant appeals from this taxation. The discontinuance was the voluntary act of the party. There was no hearing and decision of the court; therefore no docket fee is provided for by the statute. No costs for the answer itself are provided for, and none ^re taxable for it. The copies of an answer required by the rules to be furnished are taxable. The making the answer is an incident to the appearance, and no statute makes any allowance for it. The rule (equity rule 25) in regard to it is a limitation without anything to operate upon, as the statutes and rules now stand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. 269, 21 Blatchf. 168, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yale-lock-manufg-co-v-colvin-uscirct-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack