RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
COLLECTOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A railroad company challenged whether it could be required to pay printing costs for court records when the appellee had already paid for the printing at private expense after the government appropriation was exhausted. The Supreme Court held that the losing party must be taxed for record printing costs under the 1877 appropriation act, and therefore ordered the railroad company to reimburse the appellee for the printing expenses incurred.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The first appropriation by Congress to pay the expense of printing the records of this court was made June 27, 1884. 4 Stat. 695. Since .that time until the present term the printing has been done by the government, without charge to litigants. In the appropriation act .of the last Congress, however, passed March 3, 1877, it was provided as follows : —
“ And there -shall be taxed against the losing party in each and every cause pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in the Court of Claims of the United States, the cost of printing -the record in such case, which shall be collected, except when the judgment is against the United States, by the clerks of said courts respectively, and paid into the treasury of the United States ; but this shall only apply to records printed after the 1st -of October next.” 19 Stat. 344.
This provision is still in force, so that now the cost of printing all 'records in this court paid by the government must, by law, be taxed to the losing party.
The appellee caused the record in this case to be printed after Oct. 1, at his own expense, as the congressional appropriation was exhausted before it became necessary to do the work. The cost was no greater than it would have been at the government printing-office. Under these circumstances, as the decree below has been affirmed, we think the motion should be granted, and therefore order that the amount paid by the appellee for printing the record in this case be taxed against the appellant.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Orlando v. Murphy, 94 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1938)…shall be taxed against the losing party in each and every cause pending in the Supreme Court the cost of printing the record in such case, except when the judgment is against the United States.” See Indianapolis & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Collector, 96 U.S. 594, 24 L.Ed. 825. Supreme Court Rule 13(2), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 354, requires the “cost of printing the record and the Clerk’s fees” to be taxed against the party against whom costs are given. Our rule 23(6) to the same effect, directs them…1 / 2