Case ID: scl_17/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Sturzenegger v. John Marsh.
    Columbia,
    May, 1830.
    in the taxation of the costs of a survey made under a rale of Court, the surveyor is intitled to the allowance of $3 per diem, going and returning, as well as for each day employed in making the survey.
    Costs cannot be taxed for more than a single plat, although the plat comprise several distinct fields, or tracts.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Edgefield, Spring Term, 1S30.
    Motion to reform the clerk’s taxation of costs. The plaintiff objecled to the costs taxed for a survey, made under a rule of Court in this case; 1st, that the clerk had allowed the surveyor $12, for four days, during which he was travelling to, and returning from, the land surveyed: and 2d, that he had allowed the surveyor, at the rate of $2.14, for delineating on the plat, jeertaiu fields, and enclosures, said to be necessary to a proper understanding of the matters in controversy.
    The presiding Judge overruled both objections, and dismissed the motion. The plaintiff now moved to reverse the decision of his Honor.
    Bauskett, for the motion.
    Griffin, contra.
    
   Evans, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

As to the first ground, I have no doubt that the charge complained of was properly allowed. The words of, the fee-bill are, “for running old lines for any person, or between parties, where any dispute arises, or by order of Court, while on the survey, fourteen shillings per day.” 1 Faust, 17. This must mean, whilst engaged about the survey of the lands. It is analogous to the case of a witness, who is allowed by the fee-bill pay for every day “attending the Court;” which has always been construed to include the days, which were consumed in going to, and returning from, the Court.

So much of the fee-bill, as relates to the second objection to the clerk’s taxation, is in these words: “ For making out a fair plat, certifying, signing, and returning the same, ten shillings.’* These words I understand to mean, for making, certifying, &c. every plat, which has been, or is to be, the subject of a grant, or conveyance; and not every delineation of a field, or a house, oi' of wood-land, or cleared land, or a water-course, upon such plat. I am therefore of opinion, that the charge for representing on the plat, eight fields, is not allowable, and the taxation of the costs must be made accordingly. +

Colcock, J. and Johnson, J. concurred.

Motion granted.