McDonald v. Burke
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County. No power of the court or of a judge could tax the costs after the expiration of three days, unless the motion was filed within three days after filing the cost bill. The costs, “ascertained” as they have been by the filing of the bill, became a part of the judgment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County. No power of the court or of a judge could tax the costs after the expiration of three days, unless the motion was filed within three days after filing the cost bill. The costs, “ascertained” as they have been by the filing of the bill, became a part of the judgment. (Chapin v. Broder, 16 Cal. 403.) Statutes governing costs are rules of practice, and the costs in a suit are to be regulated by the statute in force at the time of its termination. (Billings v. Segar, 11 Mass. 340; Commonwealth v. Cambridge, 4 Met. (Mass.) 35; Meigs v. Park, 1 Morris…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Shoshone county, made after judgment, taxing costs of defendants as the’prevailing party in the suit. The action was brought under the provisions of section 2326 of the *268United States Statutes. Cause was tried before court with jury. Yerdict and judgment for defendants. Judgment was entered on thirteenth day of August, 1890. Cost bill filed August 16, 1890. No notice of filing of cost bill was ever given to or served on plaintiffs or their attorneys. On February 24, 1891, plaintiffs made their motion for taxing of the costs in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Faulkner v. HendyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Rochford v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1892
- Hirsh v. Ogden Furniture & Carpet Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
- Young v. Extension Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Jeremy Steven Meredith v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 2017