TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Willowdene

The Willowdene, 97 F. 509 (E.D. Pa. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 27, 1899
Docket
No. 30
Judges
McPherson
Citations
97 F. 5091899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188
Headnotes
L Costs — Prixtikc. Though the customary price for printing in a district is 75 cents a page, §1 a page may be allowed as costs, where the page is proportionally larger than the customary page. 2. Same — Exfexsk of Sureties. Fees of corporale sureties cannot be allowed, even in admiralty, without authority of a statute or rule of court.
Summary
In Admiralty. Appeal from the taxation of costs. '

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

Opinion of the Court — McPherson

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

McPHERSON, District Judge.

Several objections were taken to the clerk’s taxation, but only two were insisted upon at the argument - — First, because he disallowed so much of the cost of printing the record as exceeded the sum of 75 cents per page, this being the customary price in the district; and, second, because he refused to allow an item of $220, which was paid by the claimant to the surety company that joined in the stipulation.

I think the first objection has a fair ground of support. The cost *510 of printing is charged at $1 per page, and the clerk was right in refusing to allow it without explanation. Upon the argument, however, it was pointed out that the page in controversy was longer than the page for which the customary price is charged, so that the amount of printed matter furnished would cost nearly the same sum, whichever rate and corresponding page are taken. Under the circumstances, therefore, this objection will be sustained.

The second objection must be dismissed. It may be desirable that corporations should take the place of individual sureties, and that the charge for assuming the obligation should become part of the costs of litigation. If desirable, there are two ways by which the result may be properly reached, — either by legislation, such as was adopted by the state of Pennsylvania concerning corporate sureties on the bonds of certain trustees (Laws 1895, P. L. 248); or by a rule of court, if power to make such a rule exists. The district court of the Northern district of Washington has, in one case, allowed this expense as an item of costs (The South Portland, 95 Fed. 295 ), apparently without the sanction of a previous rule, on the ground that the award of costs in admiralty proceedings is always in the discretion of the court. This is no doubt true in the sense that the costs may be apportioned after the amount has been ascertained; but I do not think that the court has an unrestrained discretion over the amount. It cannot declare that every expense incident to a litigation shall become part of the costs. It may have power so to declare concerning the fees of corporate sureties. I do not decide the point, because I have not examined it with the necessary care; but, at least until the declaration is made by a rale, I believe there is no warrant of law for allowing such fees.

The first objection above stated is sustained. The others are overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11915: 11921: 11924: 11931: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. R. H. Beaumont Co. v. National Sand & Gravel Co.15 Pa. D. & C. 602 (1931)
  2. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY265 U.S. 78 (1924)
  3. Williams v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.103 P. 885 (Cal. 1909)
  4. The Texas226 F. 897 (3d Cir. 1915)
  5. The Walter Adams271 F. 358 (D.R.I. 1921)

Most recent

  1. R. H. Beaumont Co. v. National Sand & Gravel Co.15 Pa. D. & C. 602 (1931)
  2. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY265 U.S. 78 (1924)
  3. The Walter Adams271 F. 358 (D.R.I. 1921)
  4. The Texas226 F. 897 (3d Cir. 1915)
  5. Williams v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.103 P. 885 (Cal. 1909)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
The South Portland, 95 F. 295 (D. Wash. 1899) 9

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