Andrews v. Cressy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
WRIT OR ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE COUNTY OR SCOTT. This is a question of costs. It appears from the judgment roll in the Court below, that the Defendant (Gressy,) was entitled to costs against the Plaintiff, and served his notice of taxation thereof upon Plaintiff’s Attorneys, for the last day of April, 1858, and claims allowance of the following items, to wit: Costs by Statute before notice of trial, - $5,00 Subsequent proceeding before trial, ... 7,00 Trial…
Read the full summary
WRIT OR ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE COUNTY OR SCOTT. This is a question of costs. It appears from the judgment roll in the Court below, that the Defendant (Gressy,) was entitled to costs against the Plaintiff, and served his notice of taxation thereof upon Plaintiff’s Attorneys, for the last day of April, 1858, and claims allowance of the following items, to wit: Costs by Statute before notice of trial, - $5,00 Subsequent proceeding before trial, ... 7,00 Trial Fee,.........15,00 "Witness Fees — F. J". Becknell 6 days, 12 miles, ' - 6,72 Bebecca Becknell, 6 days, 12 miles, - 6,72 B. F.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Go%vrt.
I. Atwater, J.
The only error complained of by the Plaintiff in Error, in the judgment in this cause, is the amount of costs inserted in the entry of judgment. The Plaintiff’s attorney appeared before the Clerk to oppose the entry of costs on the judgment, at the time when they were to be adjusted. The attorneys for the respective parties being -unable to agree as to the proper amount of costs in favor of *74the Defendant, they stipulated in writing, to refer the whole matter to the Hon. C. E. Elandrau, Judge of the Court in which the action was brought,'although no formal order was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sheldon v. SillSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Beattie v. QuaNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Whipple v. WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kent v. BownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859