Howard v. Colchester, Georgia, & Milton
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a petition for a road. The first committee appointed, made examination and were nearly ready to report, when one of the number died. It thus became necessary to have some one appointed in his place, and a new examination, and the costs were thereby increased very considerably. It was objected, that this increased expense should not be taxed against the towns, where the road was laid.
1Opinion of the Court
Bt the Court.
This increased expense was necessarily incurred, in executing the commission. It must be borne by some one. It could not be expected it should fall upon the petitioners, or commissioners, as it accrued without their fault. It is, therefore, costs in the suit, in the ordinary sense, and we see no reason *645why it should not be regarded as taxable costs, as much as any other portion of the expense. It was surely such when it was incurred, and its character could scarcely be changed by such a providential event. The case of Willard v. Harbeck, 3 Denio 260, seems altogether in point.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Willard v. HarbeckNew York Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Belknap CountySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902