TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Raffold Process Corp. v. Castanea Paper Co.

RAFFOLD PROCESS CORPORATION v. CASTANEA PAPER CO.

Raffold Process Corp. v. Castanea Paper Co., 25 F. Supp. 593 (W.D. Pa. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 28, 1938
Docket
No. 2815
Judges
Schoonmaker
Citations
25 F. Supp. 5931938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1426

Opinion of the Court — Schoonmaker

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

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

The defendant has filed a bill of costs in this case, and the plaintiff has filed certain exceptions thereto.

Exception No. 1. Paid Raymond M. Kinsman for reporting and transcribing depositions at Boston, Mass., $25. Paid O. D. Hooper for reporting and transcribing depositions taken at Portland, Me., $78. The allowable charge for these depositions is twenty cents per hundred words. The depositions taken by Raymond M. Kinsman. *594 contain 131 folios. Therefore, this charge is not in excess of the allowable amount; and this part of the exception is overruled. The depositions taken by O. D. Hooper contain 325 folios. The allowable charge for that would be $65. As the plaintiff charged $78 this exception is sustained to the extent of $13.

Exception No. 2. Paid for Charts, $142.50. This item will be stricken from the bill of costs as not taxable. We cannot find that there was any such plain need for these charts as to justify any departure from the general rule established that taxation of the cost of charts is not permissible without preliminary authorization by the court. This exception will be sustained.

Exceptions Nos. 3 and 7, relating to items for cost of photostats of references and of translations of'the same. These items are properly taxable under Section 983 of the Revised Statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. § 830 . Plaintiff admits some of them may have been necessary, but contends that others were unnecessary, and suggests a 50% reduction in this item. We cannot so find. In our view, they were all necessarily obtained for use in defense of this action. See American Title & Trust Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 2 Cir., 72 F.2d 248, 251 . These exceptions will be overruled.

Exception No. 4. This exception goes to the item of $381.90 for books purchased by defendant for the purpose of analyzing and showing the constituents of the paper employed therein. We do not regard this as an item of taxable costs. So far as we can find, there is no authority for the taxing of the cost of these items. We regard these books in the same class as models and physical exhibits, and therefore the item is not taxable. This exception will be sustained.

Exceptions 5, 6, and 8, the plaintiff has withdrawn, and these therefore need not be passed upon.

Exception No. 9. This goes to the cost of model paper machine, $350. This will be sustained. We do not regard the cost of models as taxable. (See our opinion Galion Iron Works & Manufacturing Co. v. Beckwith Machinery Co., 25 F.Supp. 591 , Equity 3231, filed October 27, 1938).

An order may be submitted.in accordance with this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11944: 11959: 11963: 11968: 11970: 11973: 12012: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.566 U.S. 560 (2012)
  2. Howard Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company324 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1963)
  3. Kaiser Industries Corp. v. McLouth Steel Corp.50 F.R.D. 5 (E.D. Mich. 1970)
  4. Bennett Chemical Co. v. Atlantic Commodities, Ltd.24 F.R.D. 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)
  5. Lockett v. Hellenic Sea Transports, Ltd.60 F.R.D. 469 (E.D. Pa. 1973)
  6. Swan Carburetor Co. v. Chrysler Corp.55 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. Mich. 1944)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co. v. Beckwith Mach. Co., 25 F. Supp. 591 (W.D. Pa. 1938) 10
Am. Title & Trust Co. v. Gulf Ref. Co., 72 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1934) 4

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