Case ID: scl_6/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith., J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia, November Term, 1814.
    Nicklin et. al. vs. Hugh Morrow.
    Yancy, for the Motion. 7 ^
    
    Simkins, Contra.
    
    A surveyor led by Hw htorcturn court'-St but no provision is made tendance" Thereforo" m sucii cases, as in all others, ty^wLhthé ¡¡surveyor the sue-couusfhe ought to havc\ him subptened: otherwise, he cannot claim cost* for his attendance.
    The plaintiffs h;id commenced a large number of actions of trespass to try titles, and Hugh Morrow been nominated surveyor on the part of the seveial defendants. The plaintiffs had discontinued their suits: and for the surveyor, tlie clerk had . . taxed costs in each case for his services as surveyor, and for each day that, he had attended court, altbough he had attended without any subpoena. The motion m the court below, was to strike out of the „ , . , tax bill, the sums alloweu for his. attendance at court, which the presiding, judge (JYott) ordered to be ¿one> This motion is made on the part of H. Morrow, the surveyor, to set aside that order, and to have his costs taxed for his attendance as a witness in each case, although not under subpoenas.
   Smith., J.

The law, authorising the appointment of surveyors, in cases to try titles to land, says the surveyor shall give in his return on oath at the next court, but makes no requisition for his attendance afterwards. Therefore, in such cases, as in all others, if the party wishes the surveyor to attend the succeeding courts, he ought to have him under subpoena, otherwise he cannot claim costs for his attendance. I am, therefore, against the rule.

Justices Colcock, Bay, and Brevard