Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/842

dSO FEDERAL REPOUIES. �GUNTHEE V. LiVEKPOOL, LoNDON & GlOBB InS. Co. �( Cireuit Court, E. D. New York. March 7, 1882.) �1. Taxation of Oosts ok New Trial Denied. �On trial of an action removed from the state court to the United States cir- cuit court, under the act of 1875, a verdict for plaintifE for $29,997 was ren- dered, and a motion for new trial was argued and denied. On taxation of costs thereafter, the clerk allowed interest on the amount of the verdict from the day of rendition, and an item for " copy of coroner's record " used in evidence, and disallowed items of stenographer's charges and for service of summons in the state court ; from which taxation both parties appealed to the court. HM, that the act of 1853 {section 828, Rev. St.) is not exclusive, and as the item of interest on amount of verdict is within the equity of section 998, it is taxa- ble ; that the items for service of summons and copy of coroner's record might be allowed, and the item for stenographer's charge was properly disallowed, no order of court therefor having been made or consent to its taxation given. �Oeo. H. Forster, for plaintifif. �Butler, Stillman e Hubbard, for defendant. �Benbdict, D. J. Prior to the enactment of the fee bill of 1853 the actual disbursements necessarily incurred and deemed reasonable were allowed in the taxation of costs in accordance with the provis- ion in the laws of the state (2 Eev. St. 727, 3d Ed.) by virtue of the rules of court. See 1 Blatchf . 652. Such is the law now unlesa modified by the fee bill of 1853. That fee bill, in terms, relates to compensation of the officers named, but does contain a provision (no-w section 983, Eev. St.) allowing clerks to include in the judg- ment fees for exemplifications and copies of papers necessarily ob- tained for use on the trial, when taxed by the judge or clerk. This provision has by some been considered as exclusive, and to forbid the taxation of any item of disbursements other than fees paid for exem- plification and copies of papers, but in this circuit a different under- standing has prerailed, and actual disbursements necessarily incurred have been taxed. See Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. 134; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195. The rule for this circuit, as laid down in the cases referred to, will permit in this case the taxation of the item of one dollar paid for serving the summons by which the action was com- menced in the state court. It was a necessary disbursement actually made in the cause, and is now taxable by this court, by virtue of the rules of the court, as it would have been prior to the fee bill of 1853. The sum paid the stenographer by the plaintiff to obtain a copy of his minutes of the testimony given on the trial cannot be taxed, be- ��� �