TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Monahan v. Godkin

Monahan v. Godkin, 100 F. 196 (1900)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
March 7, 1900
Judges
Seaman
Citations
100 F. 1961900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5092
Headnotes
Costs — Copy of Testimony for Use on Appeal. A copy of testimony taken on the trial of an action at law by a stenographer under a stipulation, which is obtained by a party for the purpose of preparing a bill of exceptions, is not “obtained for use on the trial,” within Rev. St. § 983, and the expense of such copy is not taxable as costs.
Summary
At Law. On exception to disallowance by the clerk, in the taxation of defendant’s costs, of an item for the expense of a copy of the testimony taken under stipulation by a stenographer, being the testimony at a former trial, obtained by the defendant for preparing a bill of exceptions for the purposes of a writ of error, on which the •former, judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Seaman

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

SEAMAN, District Judge

(after stating the facts). No provision exists for taxation of the item in question, unless it comes within the allowance authorized by section 983 for "lawful fees for exemplifications and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use on trials in cases where by law costs are recoverable.” The trial referred to is the trial at law or final hearing in equity in the trial court, as well defined by Mr. Justice Blatckford in Wooster v. Handy (C. C.) 23 Fed. 49, 80 , and not a hearing oil appeal or writ of error. Requirement of a copy of the testimony for the purpose of preparing a bill of exceptions is not a requirement for use on the trial as thus defined. The mere fact of a stipulation by the parties to have the testimony on the trial tafeen by a stenographer cannot operate to make the expense of a transcript of the notes taxable as costs, without express stipulation to that effect. The item was properly rejected. The William Branfoot, 8 U. S. App. 129, 138, 8 C. C. A. 155 , 52 Fed. 390 ; Wooster v. Handy (C. C.) 23 Fed. 49, 60, 64 ; Gunther v. Insurance Co. (C. C.) 10 Fed. 830 ; Kelly v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 83 Fed. 183, 187 . The exceptions on behalf of the defendant are overruled, and the taxation affirmed as allowed by the clerk.

How later courts describe this case

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

1910: 11911: 11917: 11918: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stallo v. Wagner245 F. 636 (2d Cir. 1917)
  2. Corporation of St. Anthony in New Bedford v. Houlihan184 F. 252 (1st Cir. 1910) · Dissent
  3. Qualley v. Aitken4 Alaska 291 (D. Alaska 1911)
  4. Christensen v. General Electric Co.248 F. 284 (N.D.N.Y. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Christensen v. General Electric Co.248 F. 284 (N.D.N.Y. 1918)
  2. Stallo v. Wagner245 F. 636 (2d Cir. 1917)
  3. Qualley v. Aitken4 Alaska 291 (D. Alaska 1911)
  4. Corporation of St. Anthony in New Bedford v. Houlihan184 F. 252 (1st Cir. 1910) · Dissent

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Wooster v. Handy, 23 F. 49 (1885) 35
Branfoot v. Hamilton, 52 F. 390 (4th Cir. 1892) 26
Kelly v. Springfield Ry. Co., 83 F. 183 (1897) 10
Gunther v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins., 10 F. 830 (1882) 5

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