TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peoria & Bureau Valley Railroad v. Bryant

The Peoria and Bureau Valley Railroad Company v. Thomas Bryant

Peoria & Bureau Valley R.R. v. Bryant, 15 Ill. 438 (1854)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1854
Judges
Treat
Citations
15 Ill. 438
Headnotes
APPEAL EROM PEORIA. The successful party to a suit in the circuit court is not allowed to recover the fees of more than four witnesses, unless the court shall certify that a greater number was really necessary.
Summary
The proceedings in this case were had before Onslow Peters, Judge, at March term, 1854, of the Peoria Circuit Court. The railroad company instituted proceedings under chapter 92 of the Revised Statutes, to procure the right of way over the land of Bryant. An assessment was made, from which Bryant took an appeal to the circuit court. The company dismissed the proceeding in the circuit court, and Bryant had judgment for costs. The clerk in taxing costs, taxed the costs of sixteen witnesses in favor of Bryant and against the company. From this taxation the company appealed to the circuit court, and moved the court to retax the costs, so that Bryant should only be allowed for four witnesses, there not being a certificate that any greater number of witnesses was necessary. The circuit court overruled the motion, and directed execution to issue for the whole bill as taxed by the clerk. This ruling of the court is assigned for error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Treat

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Treat, C. J. The Peoria and Bureau Valley Railroad Company instituted proceedings to procure the right of way over the land of Bryant. The damages were assessed, and Bryant appealed to the circuit court. In that court the corporation dismissed the proceeding, and judgment was entered in favor of Bryant for costs. The court made no certificate as to the number of witnesses necessary on the part of Bryant. The clerk taxed the corporation with the fees of sixteen witnesses summoned by Bryant. The corporation then applied to the court to retax the costs, so that Bryant should only be allowed for four witnesses. The court overruled the motion, and directed execution to issue for the amount of the costs taxed by the clerk.

The corporation pursued the proper course, to review the action of the clerk. Miller v. Adams, 4 Scam. 195 . Sec. 12, ch. 26, R. S., reads: “ In no case in the circuit court shall the fees of more than four witnesses be taxed against the party against whom judgment shall be given for costs, unless the court shall certify on their minutes, that more than four witnesses were really necessary; in which case the clerk shall tax the costs of as many witnesses as the court shall so certify.” This provision is conclusive of the case. The successful party to a suit in the circuit court is not allowed to recover the fees of more than four witnesses, unless the court shall certify that a greater number was really necessary. The court made no such certificate in this case, and the clerk had no authority to charge the corporation with the fees of more than four of Bryant’s witnesses. If Bryant claimed to recover for more than that number of witnesses, he should have obtained the requisite certificate from the court. Such a certificate would have justified the taxation of costs by the clerk. Sec. 13, ch. 26, R. S. does not sustain the decision of the circuit court. It simply provides that where a suit is dismissed, the defendant shall have judgment for his costs. But to entitle himself to the fees of more than four witnesses, he must obtain a certificate under the preceding section. The court clearly erred in not sustaining the application for a retaxation of the costs.

The order refusing the application must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1882–1883: 11896–1897: 11902–1903: 11906–1907: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCabe v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.13 F. 827 (1882)
  2. Sanitary District v. Curran132 Ill. App. 241 (1907)
  3. Ward v. Rees72 P. 581 (Wyo. 1903)
  4. Rimmer v. O'Brien-Green Co.64 Ill. App. 104 (1896)

Most recent

  1. Sanitary District v. Curran132 Ill. App. 241 (1907)
  2. Ward v. Rees72 P. 581 (Wyo. 1903)
  3. Rimmer v. O'Brien-Green Co.64 Ill. App. 104 (1896)
  4. McCabe v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.13 F. 827 (1882)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list