Legal Opinion
Ex parte Nelson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided December 24, 1913PublishedCited by 5 opinions
On Motion To Set Aside Order Taxing Costs Against The Petitioner.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The original proceeding’ herein was based on an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was granted by this court and the costs taxed against the petitioner. Subsequently a motion was filed by the petitioner to set aside the order taxing the 'costs against him. This motion is the matter now under consideration.
At the common law no costs were recoverable. [City of St. Louis v. Meintz, 107 Mo. 611.] Costs in Missouri being, therefore, purely creatures of the statute, enactments in relation thereto must be strictly construed. [State ex rel. v. Seibert, 130 Mo. l. c. 217; St. Louis & Gulf…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. MeintzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Lucas v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- St. Louis & Gulf Railway Co. v. Cape Girardeau & Thebes Bridge Terminal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
3Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Wander v. KimmelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- McClue v. EpstenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1973
- Bissing v. TurkingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- McCrary v. MichaelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1937
- Ex parte Vokolek v. CarnesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974