Legal Opinion

Van Deusen v. Newcomer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1879PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion for retaxation of costs. Defendant in error moved for a retaxation of costs, because tbe clerk had refused to reduce tbe allowance for printing tbe record, and for tbe return, she claiming that it was needlessly prolix, and that no allowance should be made for matters introduced beyond, wbat was reasonably necessary. Eeliance was bad on Eule 59 of this court.

1Per curiam

Tbe clerk has no authority to determine wbat deduction should be made on account of undue prolixity. It rests entirely with tbe court to determine whether such an abuse exists, and this will be done usually when tbe ease is disposed of. It is not always tbe fault of tbe appealing party that tbe record assumes undue proportions, and be should not be punished unless in fault. In tbe present case we were not satisfied there was any such fault in tbe plaintiff in error as to bring him within the rule, and we therefore did not, and shall not now impose any penalty, or make any deduction.

Motion…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wuerth v. StiversMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Sanford v. RowleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

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

Powered by the Exa API