Jackson ex dem. Cox v. Haight
Jackson, ex dem. Cox, against Haight
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Curia.
The affidavit is entitled, and we think properly, m the court of errors. The taxation xvas upon a judgment of that court axvarding costs, to be taxed ; and xvas before the Chief Justice, as a judge and taxing officer of that court, pursuant to their 17th general rule. ( 16 John. 606 .) By that rule, the costs, xvhen taxed, form a part of the remittitur ; and if too high, should be reviewed there on a motion to retax and correct the remittitur. Though xve are, by the rule cited, to collect these costs, we have no farther control over them. To grant this motion, xvould be *446 to tax the costs of another court. It would he to correct COurt of errors have done on review of a judg.
ment rendered hy this court.
Motion denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.