Case ID: iowa_30/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Cole, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bush v. Yeoman.
    Oosts: apportionment of. The apportionment of costa is a matter resting in the discretionary powers of the court below, and its action in this respect will not be disturbed unless an abuse of such discretion is affirmatively shown from all the facts.
    
      Appeal from Mahaska Circuit Court.
    
    Friday, January 27.
    This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace, where the plaintiff recovered a judgment, which was very informally entered by the justice. The defendant appealed to the circuit court, and there moved “ that this case be dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs, because this court has no jurisdiction.” The court dismissed the appeal at defendant’s costs. On the next day the defendant moved to re-tax costs, and afterward the court, on this last motion, ordered “ that the appeal be dismissed, and that each party pay his own costs.” From this order the plaintiff appeals.
    
      Lafferty & Johnson for the appellant.
    
      Lacey & Shepherd, for the appellee.
   Cole, J.

The transcript does not disclose tbe evidence upon'which the court below acted, and since, in certain cases, the costs are in the discretionary power of the court (Rev. § 3465, and other sections), we cannot properly interfere with its action unless the record discloses that the case was not within the discretion of the court, or that the discretion was improperly exercised. Arthur v. Funk, 22 Iowa, 238; Packer v. Packer, 24 id. 20; Burton v. Mason, 26 id. 392; Scott's adm'r v. Cole & Allen, 27 id. 109. Neither is shown in this case. The only facts shown, bearing upon the question, are set forth in the statement preceding this opinion.

Affirmed.