Buckingham Transportation Co. v. Black Hills Transportation Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*434*435allowances are termed costs.” That this is not an action (cf. § 2091, Rev. Code of 1919) and is not a special proceeding in certiorari, mandamus or prohibition, is evident. Neither the industry of counsel nor the diligence of the court have brought to light any special statute expressly clothing us with power to award costs herein.
It is said that the authority to enter judgment for costs should be implied from the language of Chapter 204, Taws of 1937, supra, dealing with a 'bond for costs. In that chapter, in providing for an appeal to the circuit court from the Railroad Commission,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lowe v. Steele Construction Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- City of Aberdeen v. LutgenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
- Dail v. South Dakota Real Estate CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
- Strand v. CourierSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Salem Sales, Inc. v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.