Clark v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the JSt. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. The main objection is to the item of four hundred dollars, taxed as costs for the fee of the referee. This claim of four hundred dollars has no right to be considered costs and cannot be collected on execution. The referee’s right to compensation, as costs, rests on section 3626, Revised Statutes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the JSt. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. The main objection is to the item of four hundred dollars, taxed as costs for the fee of the referee. This claim of four hundred dollars has no right to be considered costs and cannot be collected on execution. The referee’s right to compensation, as costs, rests on section 3626, Revised Statutes. “Referees, in the absence of any special agreement, shall receive such compensation for their services as the court in which the case is pending may allow, not exceeding ten dollars per day.” It is plain, that before any…
1Opinion of the CourtPeers, J.
On the twentieth day of September, 1884, C. P. Clark instituted a suit in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against Britton A. Hill on an assigned account for $2,729, the same being for “work done and services rendered by Samuel B. Gordon as attorney and counsellor at law, R. S. McDonald appearing as attorney of record for the plaintiff. On the twenty-seventh of the following October the following bond was filed :
“I acknowledge myself bound for all costs that have accrued or may accrue in the case of C. P. Clark against Britton A. Hill.
“ Witness my hand and seal at St. Louis, this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. O'Briant v. Keokuk & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Wilson & Co. v. StarkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Turner v. ButlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Little v. St. Louis Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State ex rel. Gray v. Active Building & Loan Ass'n No. 2Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903