Legal Opinion

Edison v. American Mutoscope Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided May 3, 1902PublishedCited by 17 opinions

On Appeal from Clerk’s Taxation of Costs.

1Opinion of the Court

DACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Two of the items disallowed by the clerk, to wit, the premiums paid for appeal bond and for supersedeas bond, should be allowed. The court of appeals in the Sixth circuit disallowed a similar charge when sought to be taxed as costs; the only reason stated being that “there is no authority for taxing such an item.” Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Pemberthy Injector Co., 48 C. C. A. 760, 109 Fed. 964. There is authority, however, for taxing legitimate and proper disbursements which are rendered necessary by rules of practice as disbursements in the circuit court, and these…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Penberthy Injector Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Williams v. Sawyer Bros.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  3. Williams v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Land Oberoesterreich v. GudeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  5. Parkerson v. BorstCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1919

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API